Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 12 October	14 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gerry Rafferty. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzina Fuschini[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A woman who was briefly engaged to Gerry Rafferty before his death, but never married him. Got a little news coverage when she tried to sue her way into his will. Being known for one event is insufficient for notability, per WP:BLP1E. Also, her association with Rafferty is insufficient for notability, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. She also does artwork, but there is insufficient WP:RS to establish her notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Qworty (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Notability isn't established. Lexlex (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N. —Kerfuffler thunder
plunder 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerry Rafferty, she is mentioned in several places in the article, the information is referenced, and redirect is (in my opinion) the best option. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gerry Rafferty - I agree with Vejvančický, my Google News UK results showed mentions through the Gerry Rafferty court case rather than significant content about Enzina Fuschini herself, especially as an artist. However, Google Books provided links relevant to her artist career here but they would be insufficient. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a ringing endorsement on notability but found some references of this person as an artist of sorts. Does this help^[1]^[2] and this link, however not very sure about all this. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gerry Rafferty per Swister and Vejvančický. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. Cited sources appear to be trivial, no additional ones found in search. Fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ House & Garden. Condé Nast Publications, Limited. 2005. p. 184. Retrieved 17 October 2012.
^ Ceramic Review. Craftsmen Potters Association of Great Britain. 1990. p. 36. Retrieved 17 October 2012.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Alighatti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her awards being for scene awards. No substantial coverage from reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The interview is from a self-published site. Historically this page has been subject of multiple BLP violations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a nice thing to say about such a hardworking girl, but she utterly fails WP:PORNBIO. Qworty (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails PORNBIO. No substantial reliable coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dillan Lauren[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her award being a scene award. No substantial coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She'll have to work a lot harder to satisfy the boys who wrote WP:PORNBIO. Qworty (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related awards. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — This entry look promotional and does not cite any reputable independent sources BO | Talk 03:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boo D. Licious[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her nominations being for scene awards. No substantial coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient documented filmed sexual activity to satisfy the rigors of WP:PORNBIO. Qworty (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails PORNBIO. I found only one trivial mention by a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this lacks any significant content and sourcing too. BO | Talk 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The gist of this nomination is that while the books have sold well, neither Founders nor Survivors have received enough coverage in reliable and independent sources to show notability enough to pass WP:NBOOK. I'd previously redirected them to the main article, but those redirects were reverted. There was an argument that making the NYT Bestseller list extended notability enough for an article, but at most the NYT list is seen more as a trivial source and not really anything that would show notability enough for an entry. Of both articles, the only sources out there are for primary sources such as the author's blog and a link to the NYT bestseller listings. If anyone can find sources that are in reliable places, I'm open to suggestion but ultimately the coverage for these specific books (as opposed to coverage of the author as a whole) is not enough to show notability and hasn't been in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:

Note to closing admin: The author has been directing people to come to this AfD from his blog and there's a lot of new users, SPAs, and people logging in after years of not editing on Wikipedia. Please read over all of the arguments in this AfD carefully and I'd like to remind any new incomers that arguments for keeping MUST avoid anything listed in WP:AADD and that in order to salvage the article, you must provide reliable sources. Saying that it's WP:OBVIOUSLYNOTABLE is not a valid argument and neither is WP:POPULARITY. Sales, no matter how plentiful, do not count towards notability. In-depth coverage in what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources is what ultimately matters.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I have no problem with merging and redirecting this information to either the author's article or the article for Patriots, although I'd recommend deleting the history of these two articles to avoid a reversion war.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the rigors of WP:BK Qworty (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is notable, and so are his books. This book was on the NYT best-seller list this month. It was just recently released, which explains the paucity of published reviews.DiligenceDude (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This rationale fails WP:CRYSTAL; if it does attract sufficient coverage, can always be recreated... Buckshot06 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, that notability is not inherited. Very, very few people are so notable that all of their creations gain notability by extension. I'd say that less than about 5% of all creators are so notable that they'd get to that level of notability per Wikipedia.(And that's anyone who made anything, whether it's an invention, a book, speech, artwork, you name it.) The biggest thing about people of that level of notability is that while the rules do state that their books and whatnot can gain notability by extension, it's generally accepted that anyone of that level of notability would have more than enough coverage for all of their creations to merit individual articles. Rawles isn't at that level of notability. Heck, I've seen Stephen King articles deleted for lack of coverage and he's pretty much a household name, meaning that he isn't at that level of notability just yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to author article, or a new series article such as A Novel of the Coming Collapse series. There is no consensus that best-seller imparts notability. There was a proposal at one time, but never achieved consensus. Best-seller is not part of the equation at the moment. I did find one interesting article that puts it into context.

Murphy, Kim. "Survivalists head for the hills; Author James Wesley Rawles looks to the future and sees trouble. He's urging Americans to prepare". The Vancouver Sun [Vancouver, B.C] 03 Mar 2012: C.1.

It's in ProQuest commercial database (ID 926245668). It mentions the Survivors book above and would count as an OK source but not enough alone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember seeing that one somewhere, but it talks more about the series and author as a whole if I'm thinking about the right one. That's been one of the bigger problems I had when searching for sources- they were either primary or about the entire series as a whole, mentioning the individual books so briefly that it could be argued that when applied to notability for specific books, as opposed to an article focusing solely on the individual book, it would be mostly trivial. (Yeesh, sometimes I think that trying to keep up with all of the loopholes and intricacies of RS and GNG is just prepwork for law school.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now as far as the sources on Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse goes, here's the issues with most of them:

[1] This is a very brief mention and is more about the author than the actual book, so it'd be trivial at most.
[2] This is a primary sources, which can never show notability. Generally speaking, primary sources aren't supposed to be used unless it can be backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources, meaning that it should be unnecessary to use them.
[3] This is a merchant site, which never shows notability and can't be used as a reliable source. I'll also be honest when I say that Amazon sales ranks mean nothing when it comes to notability on Wikipedia.
[4] This is just a re-listing of various sales ranks on PW, which wouldn't show notability. It also doesn't seem to actually list the book in question either.
[5] Another merchant site, which isn't supposed to be used as a reliable or even trivial source. The type of trivial material it'd back up almost never needs to be backed up by a source and as far as for reviews, the customer reviews don't count towards notability and since it's fairly common for merchant sites to edit reviews from reliable sources, we can't use it to back up any other reviews even if they were on there.
[6] This is the same thing from the first bit and as such, has the same issues of not really showing notability for this particular book.
[7] This is an interview, but it's not done through what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Let me stress that this is by Wikipedia's standards, which is often a source of frustration for a lot of us that try to source articles for books that aren't as mainstream as Twilight or Harry Potter. It can be a source that's respected in the various groups of people that read or do some things, but that doesn't mean it's considered a RS via Wikipedia's standards.
[8], [9] These go to various pages but not to actual blurbs for the book. Even if they did, they'd have to be people that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source and again- just because someone is associated with a station or writes doesn't automatically mean that they're a RS. Again, this is one of the more frustrating points of trying to source a non-mainstream article.
[10] This is just a guest page for Rawles. If you could link to the actual interview this could show notability, BUT I must stress that this would be the only source for the book so far and we'd need more than one source.
[11] Goodreads is never usable as a reliable source and the amount of reviews at any place, whether it's Amazon or Goodreads, mean nothing as far as notability goes. The amount of reviews in places like that don't count because quite frankly, they're easy to make and the people are almost never notable enough for their reviews to count via Wikipedia's standards. I'm not saying these specific reviews are fake, but you have other authors who have done this in various venues, such as Robert Stanek. He's infamous for creating hundreds of fake reviews. Customer reviews don't count is pretty much the whole story here.
[12] Same thing goes for here- this is just a list of average reviews by non-notable people and it doesn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's the sources for Survivors: [13]: The book is mentioned, but only in passing. The main brunt of the article's focus is on the author and to show notability about the book, it'd have to focus on the book. This is also what the problem was for the Vancouver article: from what I could see from it, the focus of the article was on the author and not on the book. This was my biggest issue when looking for sources. As far as the other sources go, one is for the NYT bestseller list, which cannot show notability, and the others go to primary sources, which also can't show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the link to the George Noory interview with a link to the MP3 file of the interview itself. It is a 2 hour interview. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with your first point. Having any book included in the New York Times Book Reviews Sunday magazine is NOT "trivial." It is considered prestigious, and often "makes or breaks" the success of newly-released books in the US and Canada. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's Weekly compiles their own lists that are independent of the New York Times lists. (Hence the different ranking #.) The reason that the book does not show at that link is because the site "hides" the top-ranked books in the archived editions of their pages, to get people to buy a subscription to their site. I 'spose this reference should be replaced to a hardcopy reference, rather than a URL. I will do so. DiligenceDude (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the mention of the book is insanely brief in the NYT Book Reviews article. It's only a brief mention of the book, with the book not being the focus of the section of the article about the author. The thing about RS is that it has to actually be about the book to show notability for it. The book is mentioned as a one-off, with the author getting the focus. As far as lists of book sales go, it doesn't matter who compiles them, lists of book sales never contribute towards notability. If the NYT Bestseller lists don't count towards notability then anything Publishers Weekly compiles surely won't, just saying.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You stated: "....lists of book sales never contribute towards notability..." That is a matter of opinion, not a wiki rule. When best seller lists were recently discussed for notability, there was no clear consensus. About half of the editors thought that best seller lists DO confer notability.DiligenceDude (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an article kept based solely on the fact that a book got on the NYT bestseller list. I've also never seen anyone successfully argue that being on the list completely infers notability. It doesn't give notability at this point in time. That's just not how it currently works. If you want to argue to get that changed, please do so. It'd make my job a lot easier here. HOWEVER, this isn't the place to do it and no bestseller list will show notability. It doesn't matter how many editors think that bestseller lists show notability, unless there is a clear consensus that they do, they can't be used as a source for notability and will always remain a trivial source at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for complying with WP:BK, which requires only that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." There is no doubt that these books have been the subject of multiple reviews by various websites, radio commentators, etc. It's worth noting that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is inappropriate for those supporting the AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. Nevertheless, the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WBZ, and WSPD have their own pages here on Wikipedia, so they must be notable. These sources, plus many other works in sources such as EMPAct radio and Night Owl Reviews, are surely sufficient to prove notability according to the community's agreed-upon standard as clearly defined in WP:BK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.212.53 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC) — 50.135.212.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, there is a requirement for reliable sources. It's one of the most basic policies out there and can be read at WP:RS Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the other thing about the links to the reviews supposedly done by the other places is that we didn't actually have a link to where these reviews, just to the basic website. We have no way of knowing how the review stated, whether the review was about this book or about the author's work in general, or really anything beyond a vague claim of them praising the book. It's one of the main reasons why none of the author blurbs on jackets for the mainstream books usually make it onto the articles for various books. There's more to it of course, but the main gist of it is that we have nothing to actually link to as far as the review goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear, so clear that the author is very notable and so are all of his books. He is one of the world's experts on preparedness and all of his books are widely read, particularly by preppers. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines), since the prepper movement is mostly a web phenom. Signing, OnlySwissMiss (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of his books, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse is notable enough by Wikipedia standards to deserve a standalone article. If Survivors and Founders had sources like Patriots, I would vote keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with above "Keeps", I reiterate that James Wesley Rawles is the most well-known author of survivalist-prepper non-fiction and fiction books and is indeed notable as are all of his books since they are both on New York Times Bestseller list and Amazon.com Top Ten. All four of Rawles books have been published in audio format by Audible.com http://www.audible.com/search/ref=pd_auth_1?searchAuthor=James+Wesley%2C+Rawles and suggests notability of his books. This is not the case with many authors to have four books published with Audible. Keep since it does indeed comply with WP:BK, which insists that only "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Don't forget that WP:BK does not impose notability requirements on these sources, so it is not reasonable for those persons suggesting AFD nomination to add such requirements on their own. The majority of reviews for Rawles 4 books are indeed web-based, since the Preparedness -Survivalist Movement is mostly a web phenomena. In addition to many web sites, that I could list if one wishes it. Notable non-web sources are New York Times Book Review, Coast to Coast AM, WSPD, and WBZ - notable since each have their own Wikipedia pages. Most of the reviews for his books are found on the web (not hard copy magazines or radio-TV interviews), since the prepper movement is strongly a web/blog phenomena. Signing as an [| Wiki Inclusionist], Jefferson Franklin

Keep: The author is one of the most notable voices in the preparedness community and Founders has been one of the best selling novels in the survivalist/preparedness genre. Gerald Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.212.119 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 184.56.212.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I must stress again, that the author being notable does not transfer all of that notability to his works. Very very few authors are so overwhelmingly notable that all of their books gain that notability. Rawles is not that notable. Not by a long shot, no matter how much you feel like he is. Also, being published (aka "it exists") is not a sign of notability. Many books exist, but that doesn't give them notability either. Being on any merchant's top ten list also doesn't give notability either. That's not how notability works here and ultimately most of these arguments fall under the premise of WP:ILIKEIT and none of these arguments are actually the type of things that keep an article. I also must stress that WP:NBOOK has the same requirements for reliable sources as anything else on Wikipedia does. None of the sources on the article are considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's rules. Trust me, if WP:NBOOK wasn't held under the same strict restrictions as everything else on Wikipedia, I'd have a lot more book related articles that were kept on Wikipedia. You can't reinterpret these rules to keep something just because you like it! Existing through any publisher does not give notability. Being a top seller does not gain notability. Being reviewed by people on Amazon or Goodreads does not give notability. Being reviewed by reliable sources might, but only if you can actually give a link to the review that's not on a primary site. I notice that there's a lot of new users coming in here to put in "keep" statements, and I know that as such, most of you are unaware of how Wikipedia works. I highly recommend that you re-read WP:NBOOK and WP:RS to get more familiar with how notability and reliable sources actually work. Also be aware that this is not decided on a vote and that no matter how many people you send over here to vote, these things are decided on the strength of the arguments. So far no one has really given a good argument, just variations of "I like it so it's notable" mixed in with an incorrect reading of notability rules. Let me put it to you this way: if GreenCardamon, one of the most enthusiastic inclusionists on Wikipedia, has trouble justifying keeping this article, then the sources here really aren't enough to keep either article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Deleting the wiki pages for best-seller novels goes against the basic premise of Wikipedia: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. A agree with Jimmy. We aren't editing Tinypedia here. There are no space limitations. Chipenge (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Give it a rest, TokyoGirl79. The author has established notability, and given all the ink that's been spilled, so do his books. (See, for instance, the New York Journal of Books review of the Rawles book How to Survive the End of the World As We Know It: Tactics, Techniques and Technologies for Uncertain Times.^[1] (That, by the way, is a review of a Rawles book that foolishly had its Wiki page deleted a couple of years ago as "non-notable.") If you want to go warring against non-notables, then I suggest that you start with the page for Pokémon: Giratina and the Sky Warrior Sincerely, SemiFree (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)— SemiFree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The notability of an author does not automatically extend to their books. In some special cases it does, but those are the most elite authors such as Mark Twain, 99% of the time it does not inherit. Nobody is saying this material is disallowed on Wikipedia, it's perfectly fine in the author article, it would be notable there. The question is if it deserves a standalone article, the bar is set higher. He has one book that passes, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. If the other books had a similar level of sources they would pass too. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what GC said, and besides, the link you've shown us does not actually pertain to the specific books up for AfD. It covers Rawles and it mentions the survival book, but it doesn't cover these two books.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Do you realize that publishers are translating his books into EIGHT languages "including French, Spanish, German, Russian, Portuguese, Bulgarian, and Korean" ? And you call his books NOT notable? See, for example: Patriotas / Patriots (Spanish Edition) , and Überleben in der Krise. German edition of a Rawles book., COMO SOBREVIVIR AL FIN DEL MUNDO TAL COMO LO CONOCEMOS. Tácticas, técnicas y recursos (Spanish Edition). This is the the umpty-umpth AfD I've seen that smells like it is motivated either politically or based on envy. All this whining about "just because it is a national bestseller don't make it notable" makes me want to wretch. The degree of envy and "sour grapes" attitudes in WP is disgusting.- ThePrepper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.97.2 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As JWR posted on his blog, "feel free to politely chime in." Wikipedia operates on the basis of Good Faith (please read). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This pages offers a summary of content that contains potentially useful information. The book has sold many copies and has been listed on the NYT Best seller list. By title the book is iseful to include as it will be mentioned in blog postings and other less mainstream articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamuskrat (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — Seamuskrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep. Making the NYT best sellers list, and also being translated into multiple languages, establishes that this is a significantly important work. No need to censor its appearance here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heckyeah Keep. I'm piling on, to agree. Survivors and Founders are both BIG in the survivalist world. Sometimes Wikipedia needs to come down off the Ivory Tower and recognize that there are people out there that have a different perspective on life and different interests than the eastern academic establishment. The world does not revolve around Boston! - Walt in Montana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.84.198.70 (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the book in question is an important part of a larger movement (Prepping) that is highly influenced by the author (Rawles). According to WP:NBOOK one of the standards for notability is: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." While not a political or religious movement per se, the Survival/Prepper movement is notable enough to have it's own page (Survivalism) and it is at some level a political movement. Overall I think deleting the article does more harm then good. As a secondary vote I say Merge if we decided not to keep it. --SCVPolitik (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would buy into Preppers being a political movement of sorts. Are there reliable independent sources that say these two books made a significant contribution to the Prepper movement? (thank you for the compromise Merge vote in order to retain the content). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I last checked, "Founders" is stacked front and center on the New Books table at Barnes & Nobel. It is VERY popular, and Mr. Rawles is considered an influential "guru" in the whole prepper/survivalist movement. His latest novel is a big part of that. And if you haven't noticed, its struck a chord in the national psyche. Check this out from todays headlines: Age of Obama: Post-Apocalyptic Shows Rule Television. Americans currently have mega-giga-disasters at forefront of popular culture.^[2] No wonder that Founders and his other books are so popular. If that isnt "notable", I don't know what is. -- A New Editorialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.143.12 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all incoming new users: Please be aware that popularity does NOT count as an argument to keep an article. Popularity is not how things are decided on Wikipedia and that no matter how many of you come on here with arguments that essentially boil down to "I like it", that's not how articles are kept and that these things are not decided on a vote. Your arguments have to fall within the boundaries of WP:GNG and not within WP:AADD. Reliable sources are necessary to show that these books pass WP:NBOOK and most importantly, they have to be specifically about this book. Sources that are about the author do not count towards notability for this specific book. Saying that the books exist or that they sell well or are on the shelves of various bookstores also does not count towards notability. If that was the case, then there'd be many more articles for books on Wikipedia. Existing is not notability and notability is not inherited by the author being notable. Only rarely can an author be so notable that all of their works inherit notability and Rawles is not one of those authors. This isn't a slight, as less than 1% of any author that ever existed has this level of notability and less than 5% of any living or deceased persons that ever existed in any given field has this level of notability that extends to their works, whether literary, scientific, or otherwise. There are no sources to show notability for these books and that's pretty much the long and short of it. The big thing about a lot of the “sources” put on the article is that they aren’t the type that gives notability. Being on bestseller lists doesn’t give notability per Wikipedia’s rules, not even when it’s the New York Times’s bestseller list. Do I necessarily agree with this? No, not always, but that’s pretty much the way it is. We can’t keep an article because it’d hurt your feelings to have a book deleted by an author that you particularly like. I’ve had to vote “delete” on AfDs for various articles that contained things that I’ve liked and would have liked to have kept, but the articles didn’t pass notability guidelines. My original move for these books was to merge the pertinent data into the main article and redirect there, but my actions were reverted because the books “exist”. Again, existing is not notability. As far as showing that these books were particularly influential, you’d have to prove that in reliable sources. Just for the new people coming in, a reliable source must be independent of the author. Anything he personally publishes, whether via his blog, his books, his agents, his publisher, or anyone involved with him or the process of getting his books put into the general public, anything from those sources is considered to be WP:PRIMARY. You can’t use those to show notability or to really back anything up. You have to back up the claims from primary sources with multiple independent and reliable sources. Here’s where the difficulty comes in when it comes to things within a group that isn’t uber-mainstream: you have to put it in reliable sources. Most blogs aren’t usable, which means that you can’t just run out and post a blog claiming that this is notable. It won’t work and if it was that easy, I’d have created a million blog entries to save various articles from deletion. The only time a blog is usable is if it’s by someone like the editor of a paper such as the New York Times or if it’s by a very notable person, such as someone who is routinely quoted in newspapers or books. Most people don’t reach this level of notability and reliability. As far as when you do have people who reach that level, you have to actually link to something they published. We can’t go by quotes posted by Rawles on his website because we have no way of knowing how much of it might have been edited or revised to look good, or even pertains to the actual book at hand. We have to look for the actual source, which is why most author blurbs for various books are never used. It’s fairly common in the literary world to have blurbs for past books appear on current books, revised to appear as if they are for the new one. You can never take anything at face value. Review-wise, they only count if they’re posted by reliable sources such as Publishers Weekly, New York Times, and the like. Reviews by “average” people such as you and myself don’t count, no matter how many of them there might be. Is it frustrating that you could have something with a decent fan following within its niche not pass notability guidelines? You betcha, but “it’s popular” stopped being a valid argument years ago when certain authors (which shall not be named) started creating fake reviews and posts about themselves in order to bolster arguments to keep their articles, which is why the guidelines for books are so strict now. To show notability you have to provide independent and reliable sources to show that these specific books are notable. Not show that the genre its posted in is notable. Not show that the author is notable. Not show that there are lots of people in the prepper movement. You have to specifically show that Founders and Survivors are notable by showing reliable sources that cover these specific books in depth. Passing mentions in relation to other things does not count. That’s the long and short of it. No amount of “keeps” will salvage the article if it lacks these reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page Improvements: I am in the process of adding several third party review links to both the Survivors and Founders wiki pages, in their respective "Reception" sections. This should resolve one of the reasons cited in the initial AfD. Please do not remove references during an AfD discussion period. If any of these fail to meet WP:RS standards, then then can and should be removed, post facto. Please feel free to add more reviews, particularly from magazines and newspapers.DiligenceDude (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I also just added another reference to the synopsis section, with a reference to an Asheville newspaper. DiligenceDude (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue with this source is that like the others, it only briefly mentions the books in the article. It's good when it comes to showing notability for the author, but not for the book. Articles that would show notability for the book need to be about the book and discuss it in depth. Not the author. Not the prepper movement, but about the book in question. A brief mention does not show notability for the book.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that there are sufficient sources to support the notability of the book, the author and the author's other works. When all else fails, defer to consensus. Dishandspoon2008 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things aren't decided on a consensus here on Wikipedia, but on the weight of the arguments. So far the arguments made have mostly been along the lines of "I like it so it should be kept" and "obviously notable", neither of which are arguments that have any weight on Wikipedia. As far as the new reviews go, here's a rundown of them and why they don't show notability:

[14] This one might work, but it doesn't seem to actually be by a staff member or one of the named contributors on the site. The New American seems to be the type of site where anyone can contribute a review or opinion, which is where this review is placed.
[15] This is a review on a non-notable blog site. Blogs almost never show notability except in rare cases and this is not one of those cases.
[16] As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this is not a site that is considered to be both independent and reliable. Yes it's frustrating to hear that none of the sources work and trust me, it's just as frustrating for me as well to have to continually shoot them down, but this is not a reliable source either per Wikipedia.
[17] An interview with a non-notable radio show, also doesn't show notability. Just because an interview was done and it's not directly involved or ran by Rawles doesn't automatically mean that it shows notability. Less than .01% of any media, reviews, or interviews done concerning books actually pass WP:RS as far as showing notability for books go, and that's even with the more mainstream authors.
[18] Another non-notable blog review.
[19] Another unusable source and another site that isn't what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Believe me when I say that blogs are almost never usable as sources for the reasons I stated above.

I'm not trying to harsh on anyone's vibe, it's just that this isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and pretty much all of the sources given so far are the type that Wikipedia doesn't count towards showing notability. We need arguments that are more than the weak arguments that never actually have any weight towards keeping an article. I really, really recommend that a lot of the newer users and the ones returning after being away from Wikipedia read over WP:RS, WP:NOTAVOTE, and WP:NBOOK in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify Item #1: 'The New American magazine is a hard copy magazine, not just a web site. It is published by the John Birch Society. IIRC, their hard copy circulation was around 50,000, but their web site readership is larger. Like many other news magazines, the publisher posts a selection of articles from the hard copy magazine to their spun-off web site. The article in question was written by James Heiser, a salaried employee of the magazine, who holds the position of Staff Writer. He has written many dozens of articles and column pieces for the magazine, dating back 2009. If you look at a hard copy of the magazine, you should still see his name in the masthead, assuming that he hasn't left the staff. So that is a hard copy third party published source. BTW, so is World (magazine), cited at the end of the list of references. DiligenceDude (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify the clarification, ANYTHING by the John Birch Society publishing is NOT a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Doom Pen, Why do you say, "ANYTHING by the John Birch Society publishing is NOT a reliable source", when the New American has been around for more 53 years (1958) and has a circulation of 50,000+ readers in print and even more online (not a blog)? The Birch Society's New American has been published longer than magazines like the liberal Mother_Jones_(magazine) (since 1976, 203,000 readers) and Utne Reader (since 1984, no circulation listed) which are accepted by Wikipedia as notable for reviews and citations. Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says right there in the reliable sources definition under Questionable sources "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." The JBS is nothing if not "widely acknowledged as extremist" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Observation: I mean no offense and this is not directed at any particular editor, but rather addresses the culture of WP as a whole, and its sourcing rules. I have observed that the majority of book review periodicals in the United States have a strong tendency toward writing reviews of books that appeal to the eastern establishment, with a decidedly liberal political outlook. Hence, a publication like The Kirkus Reviews was quick to review^[3] a novel set in the Old South: My Jim, by Nancy Rawles. But they'd scarcely ever consider reviewing a conservative, Christian survivalist novel by James Wesley, Rawles, even though he has had multiple bestsellers, and his publishers have more than 300,000 of his books in print. As a background metric, a typical American novel only has 5,000 to 8,000 copies sold. (And, by the way, I don't think that Nancy Rawles and Jim Rawles are related, I only mentioned Nancy Rawles, because they coincidentally have the same surname.) Reviewing conservative books simply isn't part of their culture, because these books are of NO INTEREST personally to the editors. So... to expect to be able to find multiple hard copy book reviews of survivalist books like Patriots, Survivors, and Founders is not realistic. By extension, for Wikipedia to insist on third party hard copy book reviews to justify the existence of WP page about a novel injects a bias of its own as an unintended consequence. Here, in essence, is my point: WP doesn't MEAN to be biased, but its own rules unintentionally CREATE an automated organizational bias against books with conservative themes and in favor of books with liberal themes. (It is the book review publications--like Library Journal, Kirkus, New York Times Book Reviews, etc.--that are at fault at the core level here, not Wikipedia.) As an aside, I've noticed that the same problem exists for WP pages about blogs. Under Wikipedia's antiquated rules, HARD COPY magazine and newspaper articles about web-only blogs are required as "reliable sources." This prevents most articles about blogs ever surviving on WP, even those some of these blogs have weekly readerships that number in the hundreds of thousands--far larger than many newspapers and magazines We, as WP editors, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Are we fulfilling Jimmy Wales's original intent here? Have we gotten so caught up in rules and edit wars that we are no longer creating "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."??? DiligenceDude (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" This prevents most articles about blogs ever surviving on WP" Yep. and that is a Good Thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with TRPoD on this. It's insanely frustrating at times, but the reason behind this was that you had a lot of unscrupulous people that would, upon hearing that they needed more sources, go out and create various blog entries and claim that it was a sign of notability. You had a lot of this in the earlier days of Wikipedia, which is why the rule for blogs is so insanely strict now. A lot of bad behavior by people in the last 5 years or so is why a lot of rules are the way they are now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The essential function of Wikipedia is to provide reasonably accurate and reliable information based upon open source validated user input. The problem here is that American survivalism and preparedness are themselves highly controversial topics which have been, at least until the recent economic depression, a fringe interest to much of the Western population, and the subset of those who comprise the vast majority of the Wikipedia contributors, and thus have been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Within that context, it is foolish to insist upon 'MSM' acceptance or recognition as a criterion for legitimacy. One must then look to sources within the community to establish notability or lack thereof.

Exclusion of sources within the preparedness community based upon their lack of mainstream recognition or academic credentials is a virtual guarantee of exclusion of the entire preparedness culture from Wikipedia. If these standards had been applied to any number of other 'fringe' activities there would be a great many holes in the Wiki. For example, there would be nothing shown in Wikipedia for BDSM, for example, an activity which until recently was largely held to be illegal in many states in America, in Great Britain and the EU, and could not be well documented due to fears of legal repercussions. Illegality notwithstanding, BDSM was and remains a noteworthy cultural phenomenon worth documenting, which Wikipedia did by using sources, largely anonymous, within the BDSM 'scene'.

Within the preparedness community, Rawles' work is considered highly influential, as the previously submitted sources document. If the selection of work were to be based upon literary merit or mainstream acceptance, Rawles' work would not qualify, but those are not the standards Wikipedia applies, QED. As a representation of the American preparedness movement, "Patriots," "Survivors," and "Founders" are unquestionably notable works, and if Wikipedia wishes to maintain it's claim to objective impartiality, the articles on them should be kept as such. TechnologyHistorian (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your basic premise of: "The essential function of Wikipedia is to provide reasonably accurate and reliable information based upon open source validated user input. " It does not appear that your interpretation is actually based upon the foundational pillars nor the policies and guidelines of WP:N and [WP:V]] and WP:OR and WP:RS. You may wish to revise your position to be based on such if you wish it to have any weight. Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to state that BDSM has actually been covered in various formats over the years as well, even when it was something only spoken about in hushed tones. The Prepper movement is notable enough for it to have its own article, having received coverage. However if you want to prove that it's notable within the movement, you have to prove it by providing reliable sources that specifically mention this book in-depth as opposed to sources that only briefly mention it and/or only mention the author. A movement being notable or an author being notable does not extend that notability to all things written or produced within that genre/movement or by that author. If these two books were as notable as you claim, there would be coverage of them enough to where it would show notability. But there isn't enough out there and not everything is notable just because it has ties to something else that is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break 1[edit]

Keep. Please keep as notable. Founders, Survivors and Patriots are all books that regardless of perceived popularity, sales, etc, are books that heavily influence an entire group of individuals worldwide to change their thinking about their economic and personal safety. They create a paradigm shift. An author's ability to create a paradigm shift in so many people through his work is extremely notable. Most books do not accomplish that, including the ones forced on our youth in the public and private educational systems. To accomplish having readers go from thinking that "everything is fine and bad things aren't going to happen" to "I need to get started with some quick changes in my priorities" is an accomplishment and notable. His books change lives and the thought provoking ideas in his book most likely will save the lives of those who internalize those ideas. What he has written about has already happened in other countries. Mrs. RLB107.39.198.122 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to support these claims? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The books have sold well, which means that we should cover them, or we would be noticeably incomplete. We will have large numbers of users looking for information about these books. The fact that reliable sources don't say much about them merely means that we can't say much about them, but we should say what we can. --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse if reliable sources have little to say about it so that we have little to say about it, we can cover everything we have to say about it in another related article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of Order While I hold my own opinions on this policy, I actually think that TokyoGirl should be routing folks to Wikipedia:Verifiability, it speaks more to why the article deserves to stay or not -- OhioShawn 15:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriant74 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- I am not sure where you came by that opinion. WP:N and its WP:GNG speaks to the first hurdles that need to be met for a standalone article. WP:V speaks mostly about the content within an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Author article Counter to the arguments of being on bestseller lists, the author has been known to stage "book bombs" in which he encourages all his supporters to buy on launch, thus artificially placing himself on the bestseller lists. This is yet another reason that bestseller lists should not be used for notability. The pages are also sorely lacking in respectable, verifiable sources. Because of these facts, the articles should not be given their own pages, and should be combined or deleted into a page on the author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc7717 (talk • contribs)

JC7717, what exactly does "respectable" mean when one Wikipedia editor above, considers John Birch Society New American magazine to be "not reliable"? "Book bombs" are done by the major book publishers but they call it advertising and "marketing bomb" or "book launch" PR. When done by an lesser know author, you call it a "book bomb". Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While rankings can indeed be pushed in the short term, one thing can't be manipulated: aggregate sales. The true tests of a book's popularity are its total print runs and number of copies sold. His first novel (Patriots), for example, has been a long term cash cow for Ulysses Press and will soon have 150,000 copies in print. (See: http://www.survivalblog.com/2012/10/notes-from-jwr-535.html) For comparison, a typical novel usually has 5,000 to 8,000 copies sold before it goes out of print.) DiligenceDude (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one shouldnt have to point out that it does serve Ulysses Press and the author to claim high sales and so they are not entirely a reliable source for such claims. But one might need to point out to all the new editors on this page that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—... Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. ... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete but make sure book is mentioned in author's or previous book's page. Interesting book, interesting subject matter. Picked commenting on this AfD because I saw the title, and was curious about the premise of the book and wanted to learn more. Unfortunately, there aren't any reliable sources available. The best I could find is already cited (nytimes link), but it's coverage is pretty trivial. A book review in a reliable source would make this work notable, but unfortunately no such article exists that I can find. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Mr. Rawles's novels are VERY notable and widely-read in the Survivalist community, which is a segment of publishing that's downright ignored by the Book Reviewing World. They have no clue. No freaking wonder you can't find many published book reviews. But that doesn't make it NON-notable!!! , by Kayla Simmonds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.143.7 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- please read the full content of WP:IAR beyond the "ignore all rules" part - you know, the part "if it improves the encyclopedia". Please provide information about how it improves the encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope I can take the liberty of answering for Ms. Simmonds, as it seems her point has much in common with mine. Her argument is that the novels are widely read, therefore having articles on them improves the encyclopedia, because they serve the numerous readers who would want to read about them, before or after reading them. If the point were merely "widely read among a small group", then that would still be debatable, but the novels' sheer sales figures mean that the group of interested readers is rather large. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you also suggesting that we ignore WP:V and WP:RS? because since those policies also apply to all content, everything we could possibly cover under those policies in stand alone articles about the books under consideration can clearly easily be covered either in the author article and/or the article about the original work. We would have to start ignoring a lot of policies for no real reason that could not be applied to a zillion other articles, at which point there is no reason to have the policies at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Wesley Rawles has written a trilogy of which Founders is the third volume to appear. Rather than being sequential in nature, instead they tell parallel stories of life after the crunch. They are highly educational because they contain tons of information that would be useful to anyone seeking to survive after a societal collapse. These books have all been best sellers. I am astounded that anyone would consider deleting any articles about these important books. Some one must have a political agenda that they are trying to fulfill. These articles need to stay. Sugarcube73 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument to keep an article and besides, there's no agenda here except for following Wikipedia's rules for notability. The only one who seems to have a political agenda is the person who is voicing that any deletion of any material has to be political in nature and not because it just simply doesn't meet notability guidelines. If I really was doing this for political reasons, I'd have nominated the author and all of the other books, but I didn't because they meet notability guidelines. These two books do not. If anyone could provide actual sources that show notability, I have no problem with the article being kept. If anyone wants to userfy and work on the article in their userspace until reliable sources can be found, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with people trying to keep an article because they like it and trying to bully me into withdrawing a nomination by insinuating that I'm part of some big political conspiracy to remove these books from Wikipedia or trying to gang up on the nomination. Which, I might add, is not actually helping any of these arguments out or really providing a good rationale per deletion discussions. There's no notability here and no amount of "But I like it" can change that without actual reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many people the author or other fans try to send over here. That's not how notability works.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have in fact been multiple AFD attacks on EVERY Rawles book article, and the biography of Rawles himself. In each case, these began with Speedy deletes, with no preliminary discussion on in the article's respective Talk pages. So why the rush? Why did editors treat a subject that they aren't familiar with so dismissively? When these speedy deletes were restored, they were immediately followed by AFD campaigns which eventually failed, when notability became clear. This experience is not unique. Deletionist editors are quick to hide behind WP:NOSHAME But if they spent half as much time trying to IMPROVE articles as they do Wikilawyering and writing lengthy discourses on "why we must stick to firm rules", then Wikipedia would be a much more comprehensive and vibrant source of information. Obscurity does not mean lack of notability. Book reviewers in hard copy journals have ignored Rawles, his books, and for that matter the entire prepper movement. But that doesn't mean that they aren't valid subjects for Wikipedia. And if you think that AFDs of this type ate a rarity, just ask Terry Shannon^[4] I'm an Inclusionist, and proud of it.DiligenceDude (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that people might not use AfDs as weapons, but that's not the scenario in this case. As far as speedies go, it'd be nice if every editor would try to explain their rationale in either the edit summary or the talk page, but it's not a requirement. As far as what other editors do or don't do is ultimately what another person does or doesn't do. Just because there are some users that identify themselves as deletionists doesn't mean that every user is a deletionist and that users (such as myself) identify as such or don't try to improve the article before resorting to redirects and deletions. I did try to find sources and there were none out there that Wikipedia considers to be usable to show notability. Ultimately what you need to show notability are reliable sources, which unfortunately for Rawles and the prepper movement, those sources that are considered reliable have generally overlooked the individual works. This is fairly common for literature in general. For every book that gets extensive coverage, there are at least 100 books that don't. And I don't mean books that are self-published by John Smith via CreateSpace. I'm talking about books by authors that are known within their genres, have been published by big name publishing houses, and sell well enough to where they make a living solely off of these book sales. Yet they don't get that coverage for their individual works (or even sometimes, themselves) to pass notability guidelines because they're in a niche genre or because they aren't flashy enough to catch mainstream attention. I would say that I have about a thousand books that I'd love to write articles for, yet cannot because they aren't considered notable by Wikipedia standards. The reasons the rules are so strict now is because there have been years and years of people abusing the rules in order to get their books or names on Wikipedia and exploited loopholes to accomplish this. What this means for everyone else is that most books will ultimately go back to the author's page, if there's enough for an author page at all, or to a big article for the series as a whole. Frustrating, yes. Necessary? Yes. If you can think of a good way to re-phrase notability guidelines for books to where it'd fix these loopholes, please do so. But we cannot rearrange the rules simply because you like these books and feel that it's unfair that something you like is up for deletion, then turn around and continue to apply those rules to other books. We can't do that because that action in itself is unfair to show preference and bend rules for things we like then not show that same luxury to other articles. By the by, if you want to userfy these articles (if they get deleted) until they pass notability guidelines, feel free to do so.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have reviewed the sources listed above and done a search, but do not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There is significant coverage, but it is invariably in sources that are not reliable. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it is not significant. A lot of the coverage is independent of the subject, but all of it is either unreliable or trivial. The good-faith keep !votes uniformly fail to cite sources that could contradict the above conclusions. This is not a WP:IAR situation, because the limited verifiable material can live quite happily in the author's article. Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without references in Reliable Sources that cover this book significantly, I do not see how this passes WP:BKCRIT orWP:GNG. Some above have suggested that those voting "delete" are requrring hard copy sources and that this raises a bias problem. I am not suggesting the sources need to be hard copy, as WP:BKCRIT does not. They do need to be Reliable Sources though. Those are not to be found. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

Keep or Merge into a "Novels of Survival in the Coming Collapse Series" article. - Hey Wikipedians! You know how people are always complaining about left-wing bias on here? That's a simplification, but there is cultural bias at work. Don't get me wrong, I'm an east coast geek, and I love Internet culture, but let's get serious. Someone already mentioned articles on individual Pokemon. There is all sorts of inane stuff on Wikipedia. These books are, like, _the_ leading realistic survival series. If an article's validity is based largely on Internet citations, WIKIPEDIA WILL REMAIN A NERD GHETTO because nerds write frequently on nerd topics on the Internet. You need to consider that there are significant works of cuture that get less Internet attention because of their audience. Compare this with the lengthy article on the (relatively) obscure TV show Firefly - an awesome show, but more notable than a best-selling book? Maybe, but clearly nerd-bias plays a role here. Hell, the author is notable for just having a comma in his name. Please keep or merge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.63.199 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- note that "other crappy articles exist" is not a very convincing argument and one that the closing admin is not likely to take into account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what RPOD said. You have to provide sources to show that it's as notable as you say it is. The thing about the articles you've mentioned is that they've either received massive amounts of coverage in various reliable sources or they're just articles that haven't been put up for deletion yet. The thing about the merge into a main article bit is that there is no official name for the series. Each book relates to one another but there's no formal title. Even if there was, mentions of the two sequels would be best served in the main article for Patriots and was my initial action. There's enough out there to show that the first book is notable enough for an article, but not the sequels and considering that creating a series article would essentially just use the sources from the first book, it's just better to add mention of these books in the Patriots article and redirect there. Creating a series page would be redundant.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source information mostly is news articles mentioning the book. The first was a mention in Daily Oklahoman October 4, 2011. Then there was a menton of the book being #34 on USA TODAY's Weekly Best Selling Books list for the week of October 12, 2011. Seattle Times February 10, 2012 is more about Rawles than his book. Then there's a brief mention in Le Monde Diplomatique August 1, 2012 (it just lists the book by name. Then the book was #10 on Publishers Weekly fiction bestsellers for October 14, 2012. That's really all there is. It's not enough for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. Rabid inclusionists even agree that this person is not notable by our standards; nothing good can come out of this AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Patni[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication in published third-party reliable sources that the individual concerned meets WP:Notability (people) guidelines, either as an author or for any other reasons. Seems to be an efficient self-publicist, hence the abundance of self-authored puffery, but nothing else of any real significance - despite attempts to manufacture notability by synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for abjectly failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. This is pure WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Absolutely notable. Patni is a prominent self help author of Indian origin Indian with 6 books in more than 10 languages (a significant achievement), who has received multiple awards, has widely covered by media in Hindi and English. Most of the top Indian and global websites show his books and numerous evidences are there on internet. Multiple exclusive stories about Patni in top Hindi media is also available. Sorry to say, but due to unknown reasons one contributor has not respected the neutral spirit of Wikipedia and reverted 100 % positive edits done by others in last 6 months.

The subject clearly meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and WP:Notability (people) guidelines.

Exclusive publication about Patni with reference of Books and other achievements

Latest published Biography - Dr Ujjwal Patni is a dentist turned self-help author of 6 books published in more than 12 languages, a popular motivational speaker

Latest Published Interview - The Times of India weekly speaking tree print edition. A dentist turned motivational speaker and corporate trainer, with more than two lakh trainees across 100 cities, Dr Patni is the celebrated author of six self-help books in 12 languages. Here’s an exclusive chat with Guinness world record achiever Dr Ujjwal Patni:.

Latest published news about review of Patni's book Power Thinking in India Today - http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/238521-1340137375-india-today-recommends-power-thinking-by-top-trainer-author-dr-ujjwal-patni.html The book in light is Power Thinking authored by Top Indian author and corporate trainer Dr Ujjwal Patni. Power Thinking

list of Books - Power Thinking, Winners and losers, Safal vakta safal vyakti, Great Words Win Hearts, The Bitter truth of network marketing and network marketing – join add win.

All the books are with ISBN numbers and widely available in multiple languages. Just for reference, all the top online sellers show Patni's book on their catalogue. Some are presented below.

Books on Flipkart, India's top online store shows Patni's 14 Books in multiple languages [20][21]

Books on Google [22][23] [24]

Books on Amazon [25]

Hundreds of other evidence are present in different language on world wide web. Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk)— Mahaveerji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. And here we go - the same meaningless sources that we've already been bombarded with at Talk:Ujjwal Patni -

'Biography': reader-submitted content [26], written by an anonymous person who states that "As a passion and hobby, he contributes in national level newspapers, magazines and blogs on leadership, motivation and personal effectiveness as a free lancer".

'Interview': Written by the subject himself, and not published in the Times of India. This is 'http://www.speakingtree.in'. Interestingly, I see that the salient fact that this was self-authored has now been removed from the page. It does nothing to establish notability under our guidelines anyway...

'Latest published news': from 'onlineprnews.com' - a press release. "Online PR Media offers affordable multimedia press releases that achieve high search engine visibility -- putting your message in front of the right people at exactly the right time". [27]

'List of books': Wrong link, but so what? We know Patni writes books. None of them have received the recognition required meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR.

Wikipedia notability requirements have repeatedly been explained to Mahaveerji, but all we've been given in return is unsuitable sources. synthesis, irrelevance, and waffle. We don't need evidence that Patni writes books. We need evidence that his books qualify him for an article under our notability guidelines. No such evidence has been provided, though Mahaveerji asserts the contrary. So a simple question for Mahaveerji: which of the specific numbered criteria in WP:AUTHOR does Patni meet, and where are the third-party published reliable sources to demonstrate this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comments of AndyTheGrump

With Good Faith, I suggest you to correlate the facts through primary, secondary and third party reliable sources. If none of the contributors are making exaggerated claim about Patni, personal attacks must be stopped on contributors who want to construct this article and nothing derogatory must be said about the subject. I am presenting a point to point reply to the comments posted by you.

'Your first comment - Biography' - Intentionally ? the full introduction of the author is conceded and only few selected words were presented by you. Successstories[28] is a global reputed website that has published credible biographies of achievers across the world. Instead of discussing a single line about Patni's biography, you are more concerned about the author's bio. Pls correlate the contents with other available evidences. Few other lines conceded by you about the worthy contributor are -

Ramesh, a management postgraduate works as a senior regional manager in an educational company. He loves to meet top motivational speakers to know about their lives, words and work and spreads their inspiration and wisdom through his writings. Ramesh also takes sessions throughout the country on motivation, marketing and human relationships. He is inspired by Dr Stephen covey, Dale Carnegie, Sri Sri Ravishankar, Dr. Kiran Bedi and Dr. Ujjwal Patni. Does it make any difference, if the content is accurate?

' Your second comment - Interview' - Instead of questioning the content, Why are you continuously questioning the credibility of India's topmost media house to delete Patni is not clear. The Times of India Speaking Tree (English weekly) is a weekly newspaper that caters to the reader seeking any form of wellbeing of the mind or body.

Furthermore even if it is 'http://www.speakingtree.in', that doesn't decrease the credibility because it is started by The Times of India and provides a platform to interact with gurus, seek answers.

' Your third comment about online pr news' - I would suggest you to correlate the content with numerous evidences available, instead of doubting on everybody's intent. The news is about the review of Ujjwal Patni's book Power Thinking on India Today which is a highly prestigious weekly Hindi magazine of India. There is no extraordinary claim in the news about Patni. If you are really responsible researcher , i would suggest you to get this prestigious Hindi review translated and you would surely take back your deletion nomination.

' Your fourth comment - I sincerely thank you for accepting that Patni writes books. Let the notability issue to be evaluated by unbiased, neutral and ethical Wikipedians.

Thanks Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk)— Mahaveerji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in discussing ethics with an idiot. Find somewhere else to promote Patni. He isn't notable by our criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of Mahaveerji's arguments for notability above have been addressed already through extensive discussion on the talk page. The editor continues to provide non-notable, non-RS, WP:SYNTH, and misleading sources as presumptive evidence of notability.

Case in point is the so-called interview that Mahaveerji alleges was published in the Times of India newspaper. It wasn't; it was published on Speaking Tree, which is a social networking site with user-generated content.[29]. Rather than being an interview, the article in question is a self-authored puff piece written by Patni himself. It was indicated as such 2 days ago when I checked the article (Patni was listed as the author), which I pointed out to Mahaveerji on the Talk page.[30] -- but miraculously, Patni is no longer listed as author in the version that's posted on the Speaking Tree website as of today.[31] Nonetheless, it is evident from a cached copy of the page that Patni was in fact listed as the author.[32] So presumably, someone went and doctored the source in the past 2 days. So now we can add gaming the system to the list of problems with the Patni article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think we should ask 'Mahaveerji'/'...Nothing Personal...' the obvious questions. Are you Ujjwal Patni? And if not, do you have any sort of business or personal relationship with him? If the answer to either question is yes, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you aren't, I'd be interested to hear why you are so concerned that Patni should have a Wikipedia article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most competent and successful professionals are not "notable", be they a self-help guru, artist, 2nd tier corporate executive, entrepreneur, etc. Show me a few profiles in The Times of India, The Hindu, etc., and things might be different.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have used the word Idiot in your previous comment, unfortunately I am not technically competent to report the conduct at appropriate forum., else things might have been different. Just to answer you, I am not connected to article. I am one among the ordinary millions who love motivational speakers and books and want to be respected for their hard work. The question may come back to you also... why you are so keen to delete this article since last 6 months, why you never allowed anybody to add anything, why you protected a particular version for 2 months and then deleted everything in 3 days without any discussion on talk page in may?

Serious concern

I suspect, it a case of joint working, teaming up and grouping by two contributors to delete the article? Both of them are using the word WE in their comments and referring to each other on this page. Rhode Island Red also gave a joint statement on the talk page including the name of AndyTheGrump. Both commented here within a gap of few seconds or minutes one by one with the use of we. Even the last few reverts in the article were done consecutively by both within a gap of few seconds and minutes. Both discussed about the timings for deletion multiple times on the talk page. If it is teaming up , its a serious matter because i am not experienced and technically competent to handle such teaming, need noble contributors to intervene. I did my maximum with the right intention...Now a break...I am happy that i was bold as per the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaveerji (talk • contribs)— Mahaveerji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:25, 15 October 2012

Mahaveerji - I am a rabid inclusionist on Wikipedia -- I have saved many many articles from deletion. But I can only do so when I have material to work with. We need profiles in mainstream newspapers, and magazine, and things like that, to show notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahaveerji, I can't really glean much from your last barely coherent comment other than that you are avoiding the notability issue in lieu of inventing conspiracy theories about WP editors. I'll suggest to you that that your approach is, at best, non-constructive and very much in conflict with WP P&Ps. I agree that you have done your maximum; there is apparently nothing more you can do. That's the point -- we've reached the end of the road and non-notability seems to be the consensus conclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to add, what has been left in previous comments. I would also request the nominator and other overexcited contributors to leave this page for other editors as your vote is already in.

Ujjwal Patni On premier Television channels - Search shows patni's multiple solo interview and live talk shows on prestigious International TV channels of Indian origin as an author. Exact links can be searched later but for this AFD page, following are vital and improve notability of Patni as author to a great extent. These supporting videos erase the concerns of synthesis as it is not possible. Few are presented below, many are there on web..

On Zee TV India'a leading channel - Live talk show[33][34],

On Doordarshan an Indian public service broadcaster and most widely available terrestrial television channel in India, Patni is seen in two prestigious national shows as solo guest... in Subah Savere show and The Evening Live talk Show [35][36]

Ujjwal Patni in regional, national and International language -

6 motivational books in non Indian language like Nepali, the language of Nepal, global language English and 8-10 regional language like Punjabi,Gujarati, Bengali, Malayalam, Marathi etc...Strongly indicative of author's notability. Those who are connected to publishing industry know that only notable authors get an opportunity to get published in so many regional, national and international language.

Images -

Though images are not considered as concrete sources still they help us in correlating the facts that make him notable. Constructive editors may spare few seconds to have a look.[37][38]

Regarding content for WP:AUTHOR much is already presented and is sufficient to retain the article or to construct it further. In fact a detailed biography with cross verifiable contents on a global website is reliable[39]. wp articles on other Indian authors & motivational speakers are based on similar biographies and citations.

Anay jain (talk)— Anay jain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TV links are not to the websites of the TV station concerned (the first two seem to be the same clip), and do nothing to demonstrate that Patni meets WP notability guidelines anyway. We know Patni writes books. We know he's been photographed. We know that someone put an image of him on Wikipedia commons (yeah, that is really evidence of notability, isn't it... doh!). I would also wish to put on record that since sockpuppetry allegations have been bandied around I would like an explicit assurance from Anay jain that this is the only account that he/she has edited Wikipedia under - and that there is no conflict of interest involved in the promotion of Patni (which, given that Jain seems to have edited nothing else on Wikipedia, seems implausible). There seem to have been multiple accounts adding promotional material to the Patni article, though curiously, ~~their editing histories never overlap - and curiously,~~ they seem to have the habit of editing the Patni article, and almost nothing else... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage by third party sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would request that Andy strike his comments calling another editor an "idiot" and apologize. However, there is nothing wrong with calling bullshit garbage sources "bullshit" and "garbage". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't found any WP:RS about this author.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Or Himat[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was: Film not to be released until next year. Eeekster (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I searched both Google US and India but found nothing relevant but this may be due to India's unadvanced Internet system. If the film is truly scheduled for release, it would be better to start the article sooner to the release date. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as failing WP:V and thus both WP:GNG and WP:NF. I can find NOTHING about this title beyond it being inserted by its author into a number of articles on notable Indian filmmakers and film stars.[40] Taking possible mis-spellings into account, I did find something spelled "Josh Aur Himmat" popping up in non wiki sites,[41] but I have no ides if those are about this planed film. Considering total lack of any verifibility, this might even be a hoax. It is hard to imagine such notables being attached and yet nothing at all online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:GNG.--Freddy S. (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to give the reasons for my "delete" closure. Basically, the !votecount is 7 vs. 2, so in that regard the consensus is clear. As for the opinions being policy based or not (lending them more weight than the pure votecount), it basically boils down to "he is notable enough" and "no he isn't", which is a personal opinion, not a precise science (in borderline cases). The opinions come from well established editors, not SPAs or socks or other more "dubious" sources, so I see no reason to give any of them more or less weight. This all means that in the end, the consensus is that Kramm is for the moment not notable enough to have an article here. Fram (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Kramm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So there's been an informal deletion discussion on the talk page of the article for about the past week or so. Based on a thorough examination of the article and the arguments on the talk page, I've come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted and thus I'll make the formal nomination.

First, the article does not, I feel, pass the general notability critera. I can only find two good secondary sources: Senate Report News article on research. Both sources are independent of the subject, but neither is "significant coverage": the latter is only tangentially about the subject of the article and the former merely quotes from his writing, so again, not directly about the subject of the article. Of course, the other notability criterion is professors and academics. Let's go through these individually:

2-4,6,8,9: Not relevant based on the information I can find.
1:"significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - as Arthur Smith pointed out on the talk page, the subject's publication record is pretty middling: ranked 1666 of 3000-ish for citations
5:"named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" - Not passed: his own CV lists him as an associate professor, so not even a full-prof, much less "distingushed professor"
7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - Dr. Kramm has written a few letters to the editor and has been quoted in a Congressional report as mentioned above. However, this criterion somewhat duplicates the WP:GNG, and as such, is insufficiently supported as described above.

With all of the above evidence, my inclination is to delete, but I welcome the input of better sources I and others may have missed that would save the article from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - google h-index of 12, for a current scientist, is pretty low. One paper in google scholar is cited by 100+ (see scholar.google). My inclination is delete also. --Lquilter (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Arbitrary break][edit]

In there paper "Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact" Kramm and Dlugi (2011) stated:

"The example 2.1 of Halpern et al., for instance, which is dealing with two heat reservoirs at different temperatures that exchange energy and entropy by radiation is falsified because the magnitude of the entropy flux emitted by a black body is given by Js = 4/3 σ T3 [5], where T is the actual surface temperature and σ = 5.67 • 10-8 W·m–2·K–4 is Stefan’s constant. Halpern et al. not only ignored Planck’s [5] results, but also those of many peer-reviewed papers published during the past four decades (e.g., [6-9]). In addition, even the wrong units for irradiances and entropy fluxes used in their 2009-version and already criticized by, at least, one of the reviewers were not replaced in their printed version by the correct ones. If it is possible to publish such a physically inadequate comment, we have to acknowledge that the discipline of climatology has lost its rational basis."

Arthur Smith was a co-author of Halpern et al. (2010). Thus, it is not surprising to me that especially Halpern tries to attack Kramm under the belt line.

On the talk page, Smith argued in a manner that is typical for him. He cited Prall's work even though it is rather senseless. Kramm is a theoretical meteorologist. His work is mainly related to the physics and chemistry of the atmospheric boundary layer and atmospheric energetics, but not to climate. From this point of view it plays no role whether he is listed by Prall or not. Prall claimed that Kramm has written 29 papers to climate. This is highly incorrect. To my best knowledge, his first peer-reviewed paper on climate was published in 2010.

According to Google Scholar, Kramm's h index is 19, but not 12 as reported here. In his PNAS paper J.E. Hirsch (2005), a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego and the father of the h index, argued:

"Based on typical h and m values found, I suggest (with large error bars) that for faculty at major research universities, h ≈ 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure (associate professor) and that h ≈ 18 might be a typical value for advancement to full professor. Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. ........ Scientists working in nonmainstream areas will not achieve the same very high h values as the top echelon of those working in highly topical areas."

In my opinion, theoretical meteorology is such a non-mainstream area. Although the scientific impact cannot easily be assessed by such measures like h and g indices, these measures are, by far, more objective than the highly subjective meaning of Halpern and Smith. I must assume that Halpern and friends try to re-establish "Deutsche Physik" (it means Aryan physics). Mmarque (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The h-index is 12 on isi-web of science (no link, since subscription required), which is more reliable than google scholar, as google scholar is known to overcount citatations (it's not restricted to peer-reviewed literature), so it's nothing too special for a tenure-track professor. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was some discussion on the above-quoted talk page which has been (I expect accidentally) deleted in the discussion there. If you go through the history of the talk page you'll note a couple of additional comments - one suggested that wikipedia ought to err on the side of including this along with the thousands of other well-cited climate scientists. I'm certainly sympathetic to that view, but I can understand with limited editing resources it might be best to have stricter notability criteria. Either way I don't think this page should be kept without some effort to balance with a good fraction of the many much more notable climate scientists who are currently missing from wikipedia. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, when did it become acceptable to come this close to calling another editor a Nazi on an AfD discussion? --JBL (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quibbling over h-index is silly if we don't have verifiable material to write a biography. I don't like that there seems to be a recent targeting of scientists that have challenged mainstream science on climate change at AfD, but there's not much for keeping this one. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with feelings similar to those of the nominator. It seems unlikely to me that Kramm satisfies the notability criteria as either an academic or under GNG, but I thought it was possible that discussion on the talk page would lead to some useful reliable source that could justify a keep. Unfortunately the arguments in favor of keeping seem mostly to be driven by an ideological insistence that climate science denialists not be removed from Wikipedia, rather than a desire to write a good article. (There seems to be a lot of silly focus on the subject's not-unusually-impressive citation record; e.g., after the question of notability was raised the article was edited to refer to Kramm's "commendable citation index ranking".) Since there seems to be no verifiable RS material from which to write a biography, we probably shouldn't have a biography. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citation-index peacock bits, and started ID of Kramm's most-cited papers. Curiously, the "Selected Pub" list excludes (at least) #3 & #4, so this should be fixed too -- but deep enough for tonite! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Arbitrary break, as editing is getting clumsy][edit]

Delete. Kramm's citation record is not strong enough to pass WP:PROF criterion 1, and theoretical meteorology is very much a mainstream discipline, so the get-out-clause claim above is spurious. For an associate professor to be considered notable we would need extraordinary evidence to claim that Kramm has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline in contradiction to his employer's failure to grant a full professorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, you are completely wrong. Theoretical meteorology is, by far, not a mainstream discipline. The only journal, for instance, dealing with dynamical meteorology is Tellus Series A, a Swedish journal. This journal also publishes papers in dynamical oceanography. What theoretical meteorology means is reflected by the textbooks of Riegel (1992), Dutton (1995) and Zdunkowsky & Bott (2003). I do not believe that you have an adequate education to understand these textbooks. Thus, what is your motivation to make false claims? Mmarque (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, we've graduated from vague Nazi comparisons to direct personal attacks on other users. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and knock it off. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Thomas Foken, Professor of Micrometeorology at the University of Bayreuth, "Meteorology is subdivided into branches. The main branches are theoretical meteorology, observational meteorology and applied meteorology."^{[pb 1]} It doesn't take much education, or questionable motivation, to understand that one of the three main branches of meteorology is not an obscure field. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Foken, Thomas (2008). Micrometeorology. Springer. p. 1. ISBN 9783540746652.

Criticizing someone's wrong claim is not a personal attack.Mmarque (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- that's why you should have stopped writing before you got to your last two sentences. As a show of good faith, you could always go strike them out. --JBL (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few matters should be clarified. First, this debate is strictly about whether to keep the article based on the subject's notability, not whether there's enough material supported by biographical sources to write an article. If there aren't many of latter, the article can always be stubbed using minimal information from published papers, like history of employment and areas of expertise. Second, there's no precedent of limiting notability to one kind of ranking, as implied above using this list. The overwhelming majority of academics pass on WP:PROF #1 and there are many accepted ways of demonstrating this, including h-index, book holdings, total number of citations to published work, etc. Here, WoS shows that the subject has an h-index of 12, which is in our historically "borderline" region of 10-15, but the citation list is more telling, e.g. 45, 42, 36, 34, 32, ... (total >350) and Kramm is the first or corresponding author on most of the well-cited papers. As one would expect, these citation numbers are somewhat higher on GS. Agricola44 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

BTW, I'm always uncomfortable trying to divine why someone may or may not have been promoted within the academic ranks, as my esteemed colleague Phil Bridger has done above, because these matters are usually fraught with internal politics that cannot easily be known by folks outside of that institution. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not trying to divine why, but merely noticing the fact. Wherever possible we make decisions on notability by reference to what the outside world considers notable rather than by our own subjective judgement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, my point exactly. As I see it, what the "outside world considers notable" is the checkable objective statistic of >350 citations and what I think would be more "subjective judgement" is speculating on the internal and presumably confidential personnel affairs at an institution where someone was passed over for promotion. By itself, 350 citations is a sufficient clincher here. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, I have a Google scholar h-index of 14, 885 citations total, 7 papers with over 50 citations (according to Google, don't know what WoS says). And I was only an active researcher for 10 years, over 16 years ago. I have certainly never thought my work in physics justified a wikipedia page for myself. If that's the justification, as I noted above, I'd like to see a commitment to adding pages for the thousands of similar or better qualified people currently missing... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have an article then:) As for commitment, that obviously falls to us, the editors. I've created 8 new bios in roughly the past month and am gathering background on about a dozen more right now. You're urged to do the same...there are many more deserving bios than there are editors, so please carry on. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Arthur: you forgot to mention that you were once audited at Climate Audit: Arthur Smith's Trick. In a juster world, you'd be halfway to meeting GNG! <G>. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agricola44, I think your main point is just wrong. The first general note at WP:ACADEMICS says in part, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." In other words, some actual biographical information is required. Similarly, your mentions of Kramm's citation counts do not address the "Average Professor Test": "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" There's evidence above that Kramm's citation count is not clearly more accomplished than others in his field; do you have contrary evidence? --JBL (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Phil Bridger, Professor Dr. Foken is engaged in micrometeorology, but not in theoretical meteorology. This means that he is engaged in the field of applied meteorology. Theoretical meteorology is based on theoretical Physics. Please take a look into the textbook of Zdunkowski and Bott (2003), Dynamics of the Atmosphere. This textbook stands for theoretical meteorology. By the way, Kramm and Foken published several papers together. I found that these papers are listed in the References of Foken's textbook. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book written by professor of micrometeorology and published by a major academic publisher is a perfectly reliable source for that fact that theoretical meteorology is one of the major branches of meteorology. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel B. Lewis, I wonder what your qualification is. If you are this post-doc at the UMN, then it would be better for you to be quiet. According to MathSciNet, the number of papers published by a Joel B. Lewis is six. His field is number theory. Kramm is also mentioned in MathSciNet because he published some papers in the Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society. Kramm's fields are also listed in MathSciNet: Fluid mechanics, geophysics, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, and structure of matter. Kramm and Herbert (2006), for instance, derived various blackbody radiation laws using principles of dimensional analysis. One of them is Planck's radiation law. If you are this UMN guy, do you really believe that you are able to assess Kramm's work or his scientific reputation? Thus, tell me what your motivation is? Your behavior is that of an aisle sitter who only had assessed a nativity play of a middle school long time ago. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3rd arbitrary break][edit]

Weak Keep: I just added another 3rd-party cite, to a report and testimony Kramm prepared for the Alaska state legislature in 2007. For me, this tips the balnce to meeting the WP:GNG. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is a report written by Kramm a 3rd party cite? (Am I missing something? It looks like the page you've linked has no information about Kramm other than a PDF of his slides.) --JBL (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Anchorage Presentations (third item), which documents Kramm's appearance at the Alaska state legislature (with a link to his report, published by the State). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Pete T..... GNG requires "significant coverage," and the document you list is inescapably trivial coverage rather than significant, since the only thing written by the 3rd party is his name and talk title.... I mean I appreciate your effort to find more sources, but that source doesn't really help to establish notability..... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, presumably several such things taken together could be significant, even if each one had only a tiny bit of information. But it would be nice if there were, say, a newspaper account of this talk or something. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Alaska found Kramm to be Notable enough to testify to one of the legislature's committees, and published his report. Now, I'm not saying this is equivalent to a profile at a RS newspaper ormagazine, but these things do add up. Hence my Weak Keep !vote. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "the State of Alaska found" is not supported by your source. It confirms that Kramm gave some sort of talk; it is not clear (at least to me) how he came to be invited to give this talk, and it's certainly not clear that "the State of Alaska" (or anyone who plausibly could be so-described) found anything about him at all, nor why they invited him. (Totally agree about "these things add up" in principle; still not convinced that they do in this particular instance, though.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, excess puffery, my bad. I'd hoped to find a news mention of this, but failed. Nevertheless, someone at the Alaska legislature did pick Kramm to testify, and the Commission did publish his report..... Thanks for the "these things add up" agreement; I do think this adds at least a bit to Kramm's GNG "score". --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC), revised Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GNG is relevant anymore because >350 citations is sufficient under PROF 1. What Pete added is supplemental, but not necessary for the notability pass. News and other such would be supplemental too, but again, not necessary. Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

On another topic, I would draw your attention to Talk:Gerhard Kramm#Listing in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" as another potential (small) evidence for Kramm's wiki-Notability. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get about 5 invitation for that per year. It's a vanity press, and very much non-selective about who to include. It does not help to establish notability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan. I respectfully disagree -- please see the discussion at Talk:Gerhard Kramm#Listing in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering". In my opinion, Kramm's "Who's Who" listings (there are 3, he says) should make a small contrib to his GNG notability. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over there you point to this edit by User:Kestenbaum for support. But Kestenbaum, while defending the reliability of Who's Who, explicitly rejects the idea that it confers notability: "Listing in Who's Who ought not be taken as proof of notability, since the inclusion threshold is lower than it is for Wikipedia." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IB Kastenbaum is referring to the academic notability guidelines. As you probably know, the WP:GNG are less specific. So I think we could use his Who's Who listings to partially satisfy GNG -- he says he's also listed in "Who's Who in America" and "Who's Who in the World", which arguably could be better for partly meeting GNG. Again, I'm only suggesting we use this as a small "leg up" towards demonstrating Kramm's wiki-Notability. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the discussion you pointed to is at Talk:Marquis Who's Who, and there is no mentioning of WP:ACADEMIC, or even academics, anywhere on that page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think my point stands: we can consider using his Who's Who listings to meet GNG. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a small section to the article [42] on Kramm's signing of a 2009 climate-change advertisement sponsored by the Cato Institute. Cato's ad campaign drew notice from the New York Times and elsewhere. Another small add to Kramms notability, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YA arbitrary break #4[edit]

Comment. A number of the commentators here seem to be acquainted with one another from previous talk regarding Kramm and perhaps other articles related to climate change and, furthermore, there seems to be a thinly veiled theme of taking sides for or against this article based on Kramm's stance on global warming. This stance is irrelevant to his notability. We are only debating whether he satisfies any of the standard notability guidelines, although it's pretty clear that WP:PROF is the most appropriate. There also seems to be confusion on sources. Specifically, it has been argued that unless there are biographical sources, he is not notable. This is patent nonsense and there is an enormous body of precedent that contradicts this assertion. I've already demonstrated above that he has a body of scholarship that has conservatively (per WoS) been cited >350 times, which satisfies WP:PROF #1. Wikilawyering counterclaims that these sources provide no information for the article are false. At the very barest minimum, his published papers (which are, by definition, WP:RS) can be combed for places of employment, research interests, accomplishments, etc. and the article can be a stub with this information. In this case, however, there would also seem to be additional biographical info in the material that Pete Tillman has found. The bottom line is that Kramm is notable and that there is enough WP:RS for an article on him. Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola44 - I thought published scholarly papers were not "by definition" WP:RS - read the cautions at WP:SCHOLARSHIP; what you're suggesting sounds like WP:OR if you're trying to extract a biography from articles that are not "directly related" to the subject's personal history. The existing page here cites the person's facebook page as a source for some of the quoted info - are personal facebook pages now reliable sources? There seems to be a lot of parsing here to justify things. What I'd like to see for example on the "> 350 times" citation thing is whether that sort of criterion has been used widely for other scientific authors? The average paper these days cites about 15 prior articles, so even the most average scientist publishing 1 paper a year should accumulate about that much in 25 years work. Do you have a reliable source on the "350" as a criterion, as used in other cases for example? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to digress into a wikilawyer-saturated debate. Briefly, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Material such as ... research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", consequently his published scholarship is, by definition, WP:RS. Now, as you mentioned the issue is to what degree one synthesizes WP:OR out of a primary source. Again from WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves", the operative word being interpret (my emphasis). I don't think that any reasonable person would consider obvious information from a scientific research paper, like the author's place of employment listed in the by-line to be "interpreted". As for notability on WP:PROF #1, the general convention has been h-index of 10-15 is borderline and above 15 is generally regarded as notable. In terms of raw number of citations, the convention is at least a "few hundred", which likely comes from the minimum number of citations guaranteed by a 15 h-index of 15² = 225. Of course, there is no "source" for this, only a significant amount of precedent. As for trivialities, like Kramm's favorite dance sourced by Facebook...that material should obviously be deleted. I'm going to try to sit out the rest of this discussion. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I certainly agree with Agricola that Kramm's political views should be irrelevant here. In my view, this discussion has been conducted in a reasonably civil fashion -- most of those active in this review, including the AfD nominator, have made clear they welcome new info/refs that would make Kramm clearly wiki-Notable, and I've been trying to fix up his wikibio so it can be retained. Thanks for the kind words re that.

Unfortunately, Dr. Kramm appears to be a genuinely marginal case re wiki-Notability. In my opinion his bio should be retained -- there are plenty of weaker ones already in the BLP files -- but (thank heavens) I haven't seen the kinds of rabid partisanship that characterized the deletion reviews for Marcel Leroux and Tim Ball -- both of whose deletions were unjustified, imo. So -- let's continue to focus on the basics, and let the chips fall where they may. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I must deny that I am influenced here by any opinion I may hold about global warming. Everyone should be evaluated by the same standards regardless of whether I agree with them. More importantly I must disagree with Agricola's statistical analysis that equates an h-index of 15 with a total citation count of 225. Yes, this is theoretically possible, but even if the distribution of citations per paper was linear we would expect the total number of citations to be 2h² (450 for an h-index of 15), and in practise the distribution is more than skewed than this, so someone with an h-index of 15 would be expected to have a total citation count of well over 450. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. You'll note that I said that 225 is "minimum number of citations guaranteed by a 15 h-index" and that is a fact. What this whole debate boils down to is whether an academic record of scholarship that is cited 350 times (conservatively because this figure comes from WoS) is sufficient for WP:PROF #1. Agricola44 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

My point still stands that 350 total citations is no more than would be expected for someone with an h-index of 12. I do not believe that our usual interpretation of WP:PROF is satisfied by this record. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Let the closing admin decide. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I have some problems with the lack of reliable secondary sources. As an example, our article currently lists a B.E., a B.S., an M.S. and a Ph.D. among his qualifications, all from German institutions and sourced to his personal web site. I do not doubt that he has equivalent qualifications, but it is very unlikely that a German university or Fachhochschule would have given exactly these degrees in the time frame listed - Bachelor and Master have only recently introduced into the science and engineering disciplines (previously, there was only one degree, the "Diplom", which came in two variants, one from universities proper, one from "Fachhochschulen", both usually considered to be the equivalent of a Master degree). Similarly, very few doctorates given by German universities are actual PhDs in the literal sense. It's not uncommon to translate German degrees into equivalent English ones in informal settings (like a personal web site), but for encyclopaedic coverage, we really should be able to list the original degrees. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan: thanks for your comments. Good points. I wonder if you (or another German speaker) could look on the German Google and fill some of this stuff out? I turned up a fair # of German-language hits for Kramm (plus an eponymous soccer player!) but my 50-year back scientific German is too dim (and was rough even then) ;-[ and I didn't bother to machine-translate. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I had a phone call with Kramm. His doctoral degree correctly reads Dr. rer. nat. (it means doctor of natural science). He earned his doctoral degree in meteorology (Magna cum laude) at the Department of Physics of the Humboldt-University of Berlin, one of Germany's leading universities. He earned a prediploma and diploma in meteorology at the University of Cologne. These degrees are equivalent to the American degrees B.S. and M.S. This means that Kramm is completely educated in meteorology. He has also a diploma in industrial engineering earned at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences. This diploma is ranking higher than a bachelor degree in engineering, but there is no equivalent certificate. The German title reads Diplom-Ingenieur (Dipl.-Ing., see Engineer's degree). Mmarque (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is useful. It would be good if we had a RS for that. As a note: a "Vordiplom" (prediploma) is very much not a Bachelor - indeed, it is not a degree at all, only an intermediate step to a degree. On the other hand, an FH Diploma is usually considered more than a Bachelor, and close to a Master degree (typically, universities require a few additional credits in theoretical subjects for PhD students with FH diplomas, while those with university diplomas need no extra courses). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YA arbitrary break #5[edit]

Comment - I was just reviewing the article again to see the extent to which it relies on anything that could be considered a reliable source based on the above discussion. If you take out all the things sourced to the individual's home page, facebook page, or university "list of publications" page, you have exceedingly little left. Note also that many of the references are duplicated (1, 3, 4 are the home page, 23 and 25 are the facebook page) or broken (8, 9, 17). There are also a large number of references to arXiv, which is self-publishing with essentially no editorial oversight, and one to Bentham_Science_Publishers which - well you can read its wiki page to judge that. To me this speaks to the essential reason why the notability criterion is important - if you have too many less-notable people in your encyclopedia, it quickly gets far beyond the capacity of the editors to maintain quality. Do any of those arguing for retention of this article claim it i of higher than median quality for wikipedia? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The h-index is promising but not quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (searching Google scholar for ozone formation or ozone destruction reveals many better-cited papers on the subject than his top paper), and in any case is not enough by itself to write an article. And despite what seems to have been a lot of effort over the course of the article, the sources are still weak and non-neutral, mostly coming either from Kramm himself or from the Cato Institute. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please recognize that the Facebook references I introduced a couple of months ago are related to Kramm's outside interests. These are ballroom dancing and naval history. Kramm and his wife are excellent ballroom dancers and well known for various dance performances in Interior Alaska. Many manuscripts submitted to journals and eventually published are first uploaded to the arXiv of the Cornell University. Some physics journals use arXiv in their review processes. I assume that during the last couple of days the number of references increased by more than 70 percent. One of the new ones is the reference to the arXiv manuscript of Hansen et al. (2011). This manuscript was obviously published by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011. Recently, I realized that one of Kramm's manuscripts uploaded to arXiv is the reply to a comment written by two German climate skeptics with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), a CFACT organisation. Obviously, Kramm is the target of both the AGW activists and the CFACT-sponsored climate skeptics. Mmarque (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The paper of Stockwell et al. (1997) is a book article. It has been cited by many authors. Meanwhile, their articles are often more cited because they were published in journals. Unfortunately, the SCI lists this paper in nine different ways. It is not included in the computation of the h-index. Measures like h-index and g-index were introduced because the number of citations is a weak measure for the scientific impact. By the way, the paper of Stockwell et al. (1997) is not listed in Kramm's list of his ten favorites among his articles. Several other papers authored or co-authored by Kramm are not considered. The Contribution of Atmospheric Physics, for instance, the leading German journal in the matter of theoretical meteorology, was merged with the Meteorologische Zeitschrift, but the papers published by the Contribution of Atmospheric Physics are completely ignored by SCI. Mmarque (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I received two nice messages.

Your comments about me at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerhard_Kramm are unambiguously personal attacks (see WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."). Please strike them out. Thank you. --JBL (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Same applies to your comments about me and User:Joshua Halpern on the same article for deletion page - "Aryan Physics" for example seems a clear violation of WP:NPA. The only relevant discussion there should have been about the notability criteria themselves; speculating on various peoples motivations or competency for questioning or defending seem way out of place. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

These messages reflect what the goal of these users is. Mmarque (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find these messages completely appropriate, but have a hard time reading the originators goals from them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an RfC on Mmarque's behavior here. --JBL (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations too small in a highly cited field. 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs)
Delete - The only source I found was the Anchorage Daily News December 10, 2006 article note in the nom, which was reprinted word for word in an Anchorage Daily News July 18, 2010 article (haven't seen that before). The biography topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. To those favoring skepticism about global warming is it more important to have an article on what Kramm says about his skepticism about global warming or an article about his life events? The Kramm topic doesn't qualify as a biography and even Kramm would agree that his life events are less important than his writing and messages on global warming. Maybe instead of a biography, try writing a Writings of Gerhard Kramm article. I think you will get much further in the Wikipedia process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the debate has nothing to do with editors' positions that are either skeptical or accepting of global warming. Bio doesn't need to meet GNG because 350 journal citations meets PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Globus (music). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Pursey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP. PROD was accidentally declined by someone who was removing all the unsourced cruft from the article p b p 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, I remember this one. By all means let's scrub it off the project. Abjectly fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:42, WP:RS--just about anything you want to throw at it. Qworty (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did my standard searches and find no evidence of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Globus - Google News provided three results, here (small mention), here (press release mentions him as one of the Globus members) and here (this is probably the best, it mentions that he achieved No. 1 at the Billboard charts for his work with One Direction, but this would be insufficient). Considering that he hasn't established himself as a successful audio engineer or musician, the best option for now would be to redirect the article to Globus, as he is one of the members. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Network[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability for this MLM company is asserted beyond an Alexa rating, which to the best of my knowledge is deprecated as evidence of notability because of google-bombing by porn sites. Google News/Books return no useful results and no reliable sources were found upon a search. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I declined speedy deletion of this article on the Alexa ranking grounds, as that's a legitimate "claim of importance", as Ubelowme states, it's not evidence of notability. I also can't find any references other than blogs and PR pieces. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry if I wasn't clear; I agree with Qwyrxian that the Alexa ranking cite is a legitimate claim of importance sufficient to decline a speedy deletion nomination, but it's not worth much beyond that. Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News provided nearly all press releases and Google News archives provided this small mention. Google archives also found additional press releases here, here and here. I also found two epostmedia.com links here and here that promote their achievements rather than significant content. The second page also provided this promotional press release and this equally promotional link (the link mentions their Alexa ranking). Unfortunately, considering that nearly all of the relevant links are either promotional, press releases or both, this company is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was page moved to Antelope Township, Franklin County, Nebraska. Non-admin closure. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope, Nebraska[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This town does not exist. GNIS never heard of it. Google search turns up nothing except this Wikipedia page. There is a Antelope County, Nebraska, but not this town. A redirect to the county would be a suitable alternative to deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Antelope Township, Franklin County, Nebraska? GNIS may not know of it, but several somebodies have gone to the trouble of compiling stats for it[43][44] (these critters do more than play it seems) and there appears to be a county court there.[45] According to this, it's not far from where the Buffalo (Township) roamed in 1905. It's already redlinked in List of Nebraska townships by county#Franklin County. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good plan to me. Go for it. Then we can close this AFD. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M2thak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on the current version of this article's prose, it clearly appears to fail the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. It also appears that the only thing standing in the way of a valid CSD A7 nomination, is the fact that BLP PROD has been declined due to the presence of a single MTV.co.uk source. Though MTV is generally regarded as WP:RS, this particular source-piece says very little and appears to be of rather poor quality. After thralling through more than twenty-five pages of Google search results and finding nothing but user-supplied videos, free music downloads, blogs, social media and other self published paraphernalia, I've decided to bring it to AfD. Common sense tells me that the subject is a potential up-and-coming rapper, who's not quite ready for Wikipedia prime time. -- WikHead (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable refs. Hasn't released anything on a label. Only done free mixtapes. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Darrow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography with insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An impressively created article, but possibly not sufficient notability. The core of notability here is the coverage that proves it, and I'm afraid the references here aren't worth tuppence. Referring to an edit summary by the author (who appears to be the subject), no, we're not saying it's not true. There is a lot that is true but which doesn't get into an encyclopaedia. Merely existing isn't excuse for an article. If better referencing appears (but I feel from the said summary that the author was having difficulties), then there is more chance of survival. If not, there is always the chance of return when the references are found. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no matter how well-written an article is, if there are no reliable independent sources, we have no idea if it's accepted as a notable phenomenon or if it's just someone's promotional piece to get more google hits. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment there is this "Darrow represents the burgeoning trend of artist-turned-blogger", but that is a single source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wp:notability-suitable references, no real references, no indicaiton of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability nor reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent and reliable references to be found. References for the book covers do not mention Darrow. Article is written by Mr. Darrow. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. one keep is based on WP:CRYSTAL. SarahStierch (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Rona[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:RLN as has not yet played first grade. Prod was contested. Mattlore (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Hasn't yet reached a level of notability. Vcessayist (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but watch. I suggest that as he is about to commence his first class career within a few months there is little point deleting only to have to reinstate again after such a short time. The reason I say watch is in case that does not happen, then a fresh nomination would be appropriate. NealeFamily (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rooks (NAACP Criminal Justice Director)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Only source cited is his NAACP profile. Google News searches bring up results where he is quoted as part of his job but none that are specifically about him. Fails WP:BASIC aspects of WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep nominator is correct that there are a number of sources where he's quoted as a part of his job. See [46] and [47]. It's not enough to establish notability as per the WP:GNG. But I suspect that something can be found with a bit more digging. I may be wrong. Vcessayist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references that even mention him. The one reference (a web page) does not even mention him. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, unless more content can be established from secondary sources, the page doesn't seem about to demonstrate sufficient notability. I would be willing to keep if this problem could be fixed. Fireflo (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Welling[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography has been deleted several times, through means other than AFD, over the past few years, but the subject appears to have repeatedly re-created his own biography. As it stands, none of the sources appear reliable, and the subject appears to fall seriously short of our standards for inclusion. Hopefully, a conclusive AFD can resolve the question of whether or not this subject warrants inclusion, so that (barring a significant increase in his notable activity) we can deal more quickly with further edits and re-creations. AGK [•] 18:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Coverage looks marginal, (medium depth coverage in 2 marginal sources) and has probably been maxed out due to how hard someone has worked to keep this in. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that the primary claims for notability for Welling are his "award winning" movies and his "world-class" choreography. To evaluate the awards there is a debate as to if the awards are actually notable awards. People seem to take two views of the notability of the awards. One line is arguing that it is a notable festival, so the award is notable. The other argues that regardless of the notability of the festival, there are too many awards for a single award to be notable from that festival. This is a fairly easy point to resolve. If the fact that Welling got the award is actually notable, then there should be reliable independent coverage of such award. If we can turn that up the point will be resolved. To this point several of us have been looking (and it appears quite hard), yet have not found independent reliable source coverage of him receiving any awards. Let's find those instead of debating it in theory. Regarding his "world-class" choreography, let's use the same test. Let's find independent reliable source coverage discussing him (not discussing the troupe he started, as that would be excellent material for an article about the troupe, but not about him as notability is not inherited). The material that has turned up so far about his choreography has been mostly non-independent selfpubs - be it links to his own website, or links to businesswire that display a press release he issued. After several editors (including me) searching hard to try to find the independent reliable source coverage last time around to address the two potential sources of notability, it appeared there are simply not enough significant reliable source coverage sources to establish notability of either the awards (which appear to be among several hundred given at that festival), or the "world-class" nature of his choreography. I have searched again now, which is several months later and things have not changed, hence my !vote for delete. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is tenuous at best. The article cites two sources by Nick Nicholson, who apparently has some association with the subject per evidence presented in the last AfD. There are two citations to C-47 Houston, which is some sort of local magazine for the film and TV industry in Houston and isn't terribly impressive. That leaves this, which is an account of the experiences of the author at some dance company owned by the subject and contains very little information about him. There are other sources out there, of course, but I don't think there's anything that would demonstrate notability. This site as an extensive interview with him, but as they accept user-submitted content I don't think it's worth anything. The version sent to AfD before reported that he won an award at the WorldFest film festival in 2007, but (according to their website) so did 924 other people. Hut 8.5 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne W. Tourtellotte[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined A7 nomination. Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this individual meets any of the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR. There is an assertion on the talk page of the article that "She co-discovered a minor planet that is trapped in resonance with Neptune, this information will be released within the next few days." That may contribute to notability in the future, but it doesn't appear to now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero references other than her personal web page. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person seems to be a career staffer at Yale. WoS shows 9 papers with an h-index of 5, but she is not the corresponding author on any of them. (The 2 principals she seems to work for, David L. Rabinowitz and Bradley E. Schaefer are the head authors on all those papers.) Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence (such as highly cited works independent of Rabinowitz and Schaefer) of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Míranda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer. Boxrec currently ranks him 58th among Mexican welterweights and 435th in the world. He won a youth world championship, but youth titles generally aren't considered notable. The article also gives a list of notable fighters he's lost to, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not even close to meeting WP:NBOX. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Subba[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with one fight. Coverage is routine sports reporting and subject obviously fails WP:MMANOT. This article is clearly WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one MMA fight (failing WP:MMANOT) and only routine sports coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One MMA fight for a second tier organization is a long way from meeting WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quek Kim Hock[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with only 2 fights (1-1), none for a top tier organization. Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quek Kim Hock but CSD was denied, although he lost his only fight since that nomination. Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reason for the original deletion was not only lack of references but lack of notability. Quality of reference is debatable, lack of notability is not - low number of non-notable fights with few wins.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was no indication of notability at the first AfD and that hasn't changed. I don't understand why the CSD was denied when every editor at the first AfD noted that the subject failed WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Loh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MMA fighter with only 4 fights (2 wins, 2 losses), none for a top tier organization. The only sources are routine sports coverage. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Just not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:MMANOT and there are no other supported claims of notability. Sources are routine fight coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO ONE[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short story/web content with no evidence of notability. A Google search provides nothing that would prove the notability of this story. PROD deleted by article creator. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the evident COI and lack of notability with no WP:RS, this appears to be an attempt at publicity.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indicate of wp:notability. No wp:suitable references; actually no real references. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that would show why this is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The story exists, but existing is not enough. We need sources that are independent of the creator, the websites he published this on, or anyone representing him. No reliable sources of this sort exist.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of viruses[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This long-suffering page is unwieldly, poorly-maintained, and of dubious value. I don't expect any of those characteristics to change. ~~Serving a similar purpose, much more effectively, is Category:Viruses.~~ The page nominated for deletion is full of WP:redlinks, most of which are of no value and which include all of the vandalism that plagues this page. Scray (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it might be sacrilege to delete a page created in 2005, but I thought this is worth discussing if only to determine how we'll ever make it useful. I have notified Wikiproject Viruses, Wikiproject Microbiology, and Wikiproject Medicine. -- Scray (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - No rationale for deletion presented outside of editing issues. This is not a highly publicized cleanup area, this is a place for determining the notability of topics under WP traditional practice, guidelines, and policy. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and please accept my apology for using the wrong mechanism. What would be the right forum for discussing deletion based on content? I did not use PROD because I thought that was the speedier (and less-visible) process. -- Scray (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DISCRIMINATE. Indiscriminate excessive list with no chance of a concise summary. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This list is so extensive that it serves practically no function to the reader beyond being interesting - it's good for pointing readers to a random virus article (which is good considering that a lot of readers use wikipedia for general reading, not just as a primary reference). However, I'm aware that "it's interesting" isn't a very good argument to keep. That said, I don't think the nomination statement contains any valid reasons to delete either, and the sheer number of redlinks makes the article somewhat useful for development, in that it may encourage editors to create articles on viruses that are redlinked here.

So to summarise,

Reasons to keep:

It's cool.
It encourages article creation.

Reasons to delete:

It's clutter.

Overall I think the poor reasons to keep outweigh the poorer reasons to delete. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Basalisk's feedback, I realized that I should try to find a more policy-based reason to delete, and verifiability is the most obvious reason - it's quite hard to find a definitive list of viruses. One candidate is the ICTV, which reports 2500(!) viruses, which if we tried to approach would invite huge management challenges (and if we plan for an incomplete list, how to decide and manage notability)? It occurred to me that it is much easier to verify the accuracy of a List of virus families, so I created that just now (it is complete, verifiable, and notable from the start). Does that help address the need without retaining an unwieldy list of limited value? Each family would then represent a manageable and notable article. --Scray (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is already useful but needs clean-up. It is a notable topic but requires referencing for verifiability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep because there is no shortage of space (as in a book), but what a mess! I was amused to see the "incomplete tag" - this list will never be complete as new viruses are emerging all the time. It's like adding an incomplete tag to a list of planets in the universe. I think I understand why this was nominated. Separate lists of animal, plant, bacteriophages, viruses of archae and mycoviruses, would be more useful. And, we don't need to list all the serotypes and genogroups of the same virus. But this forum is not about clean-up; it's about deletion, and I am not convinced (so far) by the arguments for deletion. A concise summary is possible, in that viruses infect all forms of life. For a single dedicated editor, cleaning up this would entail months of work, and creating the articles even longer. But a seemingly impossible challenge is not a rationale for deletion. Graham Colm (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Also, red links are functional to encourage the creation of new articles about notable topics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page has content that can completely be covered with categories. It might be worth maintaining only if someone bothered to classify each virus according to accepted virological taxonomy (DNA vs RNA viruses, single- or doublestranded etc). There is already related virology content that achieves the same thing in a more approachable manner. Is this article actually of any use to anyone? I doubt it. JFW | T@lk 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list does indeed include the ICTV entries. Most named viruses are reasonably notable - 2,500 is an almost vanishing percentage compared with the estimated "millions" of viruses. Wikipedia's coverage of viruses is still at an early stage, and as a result of enlarging this list I identified several confusions over the various mustelid viruses. Moreover the suggestion that it is replaceable by categories, while basically sound, is only true if all the red links are turned blue. Further it allows searching for, for example, "bunchy top" which finds items which would not be in the same taxonomic category. Further still categories tend to be (though they do not need to be) indexed by only one name, whereas a list can include both the common and scientific name, and indeed other items which may be helpful to the reader. Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

So, you favor multiple entries for the same virus? I thought this list was chaos already. -- Scray (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to help readers find articles. I would not propose a full synonymy. I am not sure why you say this list is "chaos". I removed a number of bad entries, added a significant number of new entries, and sorted the list properly with reasonably sensible column breaks. There are of course many ways at looking at a list, and if you are looking from a perspective where this list is "chaos" then what you need is a list which satisfies your desires for "order", perhaps your list of families, and ensuring each family has a list of genera, and so forth. Similarly there may be some benefit in a list keyed by abbreviation, or a list of current scientific names only, or a full taxonomy. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I want to emphasize that there is no "my" list. Ownership aside, it's clear that a page should have reliable sources, and I just don't see evidence that the list being discussed here can be consistently sourced. In addition, it's a flat list without structure to provide meaning (i.e. I am reminded of the "indiscriminate collection" criterion, and the presence of synonyms in a list with hundreds of entries invites application of that criterion). Without apparent consensus, it looks like this list may get kept, but I think that it serves WP poorly because it will never be complete, informative, or valuable. It's just a pile of mostly-red wikilinks. -- Scray (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need multiple entries to have the common and scientific name: you just need to have 2 columns, one with the common and one with the scientific name. I don't see how that would be confusing or add to the "chaos". --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid topic for a list. Of course it could be improved and subcategorised, but Wikipedia is improvable and it's a project for the long haul: entries aren't instantly perfect. WP:AfD says that if an article is improvable and is a notable topic, it shouldn't be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful for figuring out which articles we're missing. The cat isn't good enough, because the cat doesn't contain the redlinked items. Readers could at least figure out that the entries are viruses, although I hope that the list will be expanded some day, perhaps to include links to the virus families. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough and WhatamIdoing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graham and Rich. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen M.D. Chang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big mess of an article. May not be notable, but even if notable, this article has self-promotion and copyright issues written all over it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it is a mess of an article. Notability looks almost certain if not already established. Reference are marginal regarding wp:notability but IMO that is more reflectiv on the poos quality of the article I'm guessing that more sources are available. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:N with no reliable sources. Should not vote 'keep' while "guessing" that more sources are available. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs work, but seems to have been acting since 1978. Not a flash in the pan.--Auric (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MANOTE. IMDB (not a reliable source) says most of his roles have been as "Boss", "Referee", "Chinese ...", "Instructor", or even "Uncredited", but that doesn't show significant roles. His most notable role seems to have been in "Double Happiness", but even then the NY Times review gave him a one line mention as a "friend of Bruce Lee" (and notability is not inherited). He doesn't seem to meet any notability standards and the sources either lack independence or only mention him in passing. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence that he meets the notability criteria for entertainers or martial artists. Astudent0 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The wiki article says he's been an actor since 1978. A google news archive search turns up a mere six hits, all of which are just press release-type listings. Google books shows his name only comes up with directory listings (except the google-based books). There's nothing to write an article based on. SalHamton (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural marriage[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost totally unsourced. Everything the term is used to refer to has a real article (eg. Catholic marriage or LGBT rights opposition), but the term has enough uses that it isn't a suitable redirect, and is infrequently enough used that there's no point in a disambiguation page for people searching on it. The almost total lack of sources also indicates against a merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Almost totally unsourced", "almost total lack of resources" so erm... it is sourced? I'm sorry, I was expecting a better argument for deletion. Tigerboy1966 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason for it to be deleted. Corn cheese (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 substantial sources with substantial coverage and looks like a real topic. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sufficiently well-sourced. DiligenceDude (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete. The present title of the article does not have a neutral point-of-view. The view, e.g., that all polygamous marriages are unnatural, as the present and existing title necessarily implies, is not universally held by all humankind, within or without the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the present and existing title also attempts to imply; and neither is the claim, that such marriages are intrinsically, automatically and necessarily invalid, is universally accepted by all. -- KC9TV 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It must also be noted that the very creator [48] of this particular article is himself prevented from further activity herein, for, amongst other things, espousing anti-Semitism [49], [and Jews are also mentioned in this article. We have no way of knowing that if this were in fact an elaborate "go at the Jews", or anti-Semitic rant, of some sort [50] . ] -- KC9TV 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It must also be noted that not having a neutral point-of-view is not a valid reason for deletion. Tigerboy1966 08:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ...." ; and I thought that the Holy Father and the Holy Roman Church are supposed to put a stop to this medieval "carry-on" [51]. -- KC9TV 00:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, speedy-deletion. The articles was also created [52] [53] (the 16 April 2009‎) technically in violation of the creator's pledge (the 06 February 2009) [54] made in the course of his un-blocking request [55] – of " .... not to make controversial edits on Jewish issues" [56] [57] – with at least two references to Jews and Judaism, in two separate paragraphs, with one a disparaging one [58]. -- KC9TV 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor evading a topic ban is not a reason to delete an article. That's something to bring up in Arbitration Enforcement or ANI, depending on how the ban was imposed. Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Traditional marriage, for which this is a POV fork, or Ecclesiastical ordinances, for which this is a minor example. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It really doesn't matter if people like the term or not. I can certainly see why one might object to the implication that any other form of union is somehow "unnatural", but the opening sentence makes it clear that the term is used in canon law and there are plenty of sources that back this up. The article is weak and messy at the moment, but that's really an editing issue. Tigerboy1966 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note KC9TV is rewriting comments after they have been responded to. This is not on. Tigerboy1966 08:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short, rather messy but also succinct from an RC pov.--Lyricmac (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Research indicates it's a term of art in Catholic practices. Article could obviously do with some cleanup and expanding, but that's not a reason to delete. However, I'm not prejudiced against moving the article to "Natural marriage (Catholic theology)" or something similar in categorization. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Congress of Families[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable entity that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to press releases and other fringe material, trivial mentions, and other things that cannot demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are press stories in various publications alluding to apparent active opposition to the group in Amsterdam in 2009, but the trace of this appears to be sourced to press releases by WCF themselves; their press office certainly seems to be a busy one. So it is difficult separating the primary from proper 3rd party coverage. However there are also two discussions of the group in The Guardian: on their 1999 congress; and a 2007 column; I'm inclining to think these are just about enough to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added The Guardian references to the article, along with one to a book with a feminist legal theory perspective which discusses this organisation. AllyD (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that two pieces that barely pass the criterion of significant coverage (I'm not sure that the legal book even does - two paragraphs), generated over fifteen years of existence, can really support an article. (Comment is Free is not, I don't think, considered a reliable source, and the mention is at any rate trivial; the Telegraph writer is affiliated with the conference, and obviously cannot contribute any third-party notability.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian "Comment is Free" piece is by Michelle Goldberg; I refer you to WP:RS - specifically "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." AllyD (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is Christina Odone. JASpencer (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For three reasons, (1) press coverage, (2) attendence at events and (3) opposition generated - including no doubt a few WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes to come up. JASpencer (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What press coverage? (The other two reasons are irrelevant; WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a notability rationale if you can't back it up with sources.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4 wp:notability-suitable references with substantial coverage on them. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment to AllyD above; two are not notability-suitable at all, and the other two are just not sufficient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. I tagged this article for speedy deletion as I found absolutely zero evidence to confirm the record label exists and there is no Internet presence (official website, social networking profile, etc.).

815 Records LLC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Record label which has no notable artists or releases. Cloudz 679 09:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of either wp:notability or RW notability. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alley#United Kingdom. Michig (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitten[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOT#DICT Curb Chain (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But I would like to see this information in a dictionary, though. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is at Wiktionary, which the information is duplicated here.Curb Chain (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~the relevant page on Wiktionary, it sounds like the most reasonable outcome.~~ Alley#United Kingdom, per below suggestion. --Cavarrone (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alley. Other dialect words like Ginnel already redirect there. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to Alley#United Kingdom: much the same text alreadfy exists there. I do not beleive this has room for expansion into a full article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to alley per Peterkingiron.--Charles (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The J*Lu Blog[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Might meet notability requirements but as written is overly promotional. Eeekster (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned up most of the promotional speak, but I have to say that I doubt seriously that this will pass notability guidelines. I'll see what I can find, but so far there's nothing to show that this is particularly notable. It should be noted that this was previously deleted yesterday, probably under A7 or G11.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the user Venemiami is most likely the blog creator, as evidenced by the fact that this username and the username for this YouTube account are identical and openly states that it's the blog creator. Admins might want to see how often this has been created and maybe salt to avoid recreation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has no notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I can't find any coverage of this blog in any reliable sources and the one award it won isn't particularly notable enough to give notability in the slightest, let alone give enough notability to warrant keeping it on that basis alone. This might be speedyable and I'll try seeing if I can A7 it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy on account of the award (it checked out). SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, figured that might be just dubiously notable enough to keep it from dying a fast death. At least this way when it's deleted via AfD it can potentially be speedied in other ways.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero or near-zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe I was the original speedy nominator for non-notable web content. I agree that the award was given by the organization cited but I don't see the award as particularly notable nor the awarding organization as especially expert in assessing web content; this could be log-rolling between related organizations for all I can tell. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined the speedy because A7 only requires a claim of notability be made, and a real award seems to do that. If the award had been a fabrication, the article would have died on the spot, no question about it. I also have no doubt that this article will ultimately be executed, but it's going the slow route rather than the quick route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:WEB, the single source is pretty weak. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of this closing early per WP:SNOW? There's about 5 good delete arguments now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion has already been declined. Better to let it run the full course, and then if this ever resurfaces, we can speedy it as G4. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eric Flint. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1635: The Papal Stakes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a search for this title and there are no reliable sources that show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. I had initially redirected it, but it's been challenged under the premise of "it exists", so to be fair I'm bringing it here. Unless we have 4+ reliable sources suddenly get published, I'm going to doubt that this will pass notability guidelines anytime soon. The author is notable, the overall series is notable, but this particular entry? Not notable outside of the series enough to merit its own article at this point in time. If anyone can find sourcing for it I'm open to alternatives, but there's a dearth of RS here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. The article material is basically "it exists" and then a plot summary. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total failure of every single criterion of WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the heck? All the other books in the series have individual articles; what makes this one special? It doesn't (yet) have a review in Publishers Weekly? —WWoods (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:NBOOK you must have coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. That doesn't exist for this book at this point in time and per WP:CRYSTAL, might never exist. We can't keep a book based on sources maybe coming about one day and we can't keep one because other books in the series have articles, although I'd like to point out that some of them have the same issues of not having enough coverage. It looks like the only reason some of them still have articles is because nobody has nominated them yet for deletion, so saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument to keep this one. If you want to keep the book, find reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Flint - Google News found no evidence of third-party sources and it may be too soon, considering it was released recently (October 2). What concerns me of merging or redirecting is that there aren't any significant third-party sources, the only usable link to support the book would be the baenebooks.com page. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Uguz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference of the article is to the author, thereby no other sites appeared on the article as a reference. No significance, just of a woman that is a blogger on Tumblr but yet, no significance was asserted. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw this nomination. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 01:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Cole[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only minor awards. Fails GNG without coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Gene93k — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Geocentrism. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern geocentrism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that the fundamental rule for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:42. In this case, I think that the vast majority of this article is original research, relying on primary sources that believe in geocentrism, or stating things that cannot be verified. A lot of the claims are made in the article that do not seem to have independent sources. I also note that Wikipedia's guidelines of fringe theories seem to say that the topic must be treated in a serious way by non-believers in reliable publications, but there are none referenced to the article and in my search this morning I found almost no texts that referred to this idea as a legitimate movement. Junjunone (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below are my thoughts in support of keeping the article.

65.128.191.161 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability. WP guidelines state that "ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight" and "WP summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". This implies a more concise article, properly written to avoid creating support or undue weight... not deletion. And some articles on WP may simply be longer than others, or included, without necessarily implying a certain level of importance over another.

For example, an article about a U.S. president versus an article about a Star Wars book character, or something else that's really esoteric.

Sources and Undue Weight. WP says "[it] is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." This seems to support deletion at first glance. However, note this important caveat: "Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. [...] Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. [...] Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality."

With this in mind, the article is certainly not presenting its theories as facts, nor in anywhere the equal weight of modern consensus. The opening paragraph details exactly how the theory is viewed, by whom, in what context, and with what weight (specifically, that it is directly opposed to scientific consensus, and it has strong ties to theological beliefs, and if you went to preschool, common sense clearly reveals just how popular the view is). It instead presents what its adherents believe, and how these issues conflict with modern science, without biased words making it seem as though the conflict is considered to be one on equal ground.

It's true that there won't be many scholarly sources available in support of a fringe belief, but that's by nature. WP doesn't require this though, UNLESS the text of the article is clearly in support of the theory. WP only requires sources ABOUT the subject, it's believers, notable issues, etc. For example, sources which:

- Confirm the belief is (even borderline) significant in some way

- Describe the belief

- Confirm the existence of believers, and/or their estimated numbers

- Describe significant figures or events relating to the belief

Similar Example. Scientology is a relatively low-adherent, modern-science-rejected belief that's given many long pages on WP. Do you know anyone personally who believes in Scientology? Can you get an accurate figure of Scientologists? Can you find any scholarly articles that seriously support dianetics, thetans, etc? Does Scientology deserve an article X number of pages long, which implies undue weight? No, but the belief is culturally significant, especially with its legal issues, and that's why it's included.

Conclusion. I believe modern geocentricity properly adheres to WP guidelines, and warrants inclusion. It exists (has believers), and it has notable links to other major areas of science and theology, mainstream and otherwise. We can't make a deletion call simply based on what we believe to be the number of believers or the absurdity of the belief.

As for the article itself, it does seem to be pretty messy, containing some uncited, biased, and cluttered information. But those things can be fixed. Maybe what people view as the biggest problem parts should be removed until the article becomes more stable. I've already put some work into it, and rewrote the introduction.

Response

I've considered this statement carefully and I thank the author for it. However, I see one glaring problem with the argument: there are no independent, reliable sources that even mention the subject of modern geocentrism. Rather unlike Scientology about which entire libraries of independent, reliable sources have been written, I cannot find any reliable sources that deal with this subject in a substantive way. For example, the definitive scholarly work on the subject of creationism by Ronald Numbers does not even make a passing mention of the contemporary support for geocentrism: [59]. Geocentrism is mentioned in his book as either 1) the original 16th century argument, 2) referencing the fact that the Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod continued to hold to a Ptolemaic Universe well into the twentieth century (though they no longer do, apparently), or 3) as a context for a controversy that existed in the 1960s where the Bible-Science Newsletter/Bible-Science Association(I notice we have no articles about those topics which appear to me to be much more notable than the one we're discussing here) published articles advocating a Tychonic viewpoint and that later the Creation Research Society's newsletter also published some similar articles. No mention of continued support for this is made by Numbers. The proposal that this is a contemporary monolithic proposal or one that can be captured by a singular ideology of "modern geocentrism" seems entirely made-up by Wikipedia, actually. In other words, this idea is so obscure that a 500 page scholarly book on the subject by the person who is arguably the foremost expert on the subject does not even mention the position as it is defined in our article. I think this is extremely damning: we don't have any independent sources from which to write the article. All we have is a lot of noise from various personal websites. Junjunone (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting the WP:GNG in any way separate from other articles about geocentricism. Might support a redirect. Perhaps someone can work on finding reliable independent sources to build up a legitimate section elsewhere, at which point we can discuss the merits of a spinout. Vcessayist (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the claim that there are no independent, reliable sources that even mention the subject of modern geocentrism. Google books search and Google scholar search turn up a sufficient number of reliable sources mentioning modern geocentrism to establish notability. Much of the content is already covered by appropriate citations, and I think much else could also be sourced. We should not delete an article on a notable topic because of repairable defects. --Lambiam 01:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google scholar counts 20 hits. Most of them are to primary sources that seem to use the term because they found it on Wikipedia. A vanishing few are serious enough to be worthy of consideration, and these do not treat the subject seriously or in-depth enough to justify a whole article.Google books is even worse with a number of self-published pieces cribbed unapologetically from Wikipedia. Which sources do you think are best to base the article on? Junjunone (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geocentrism, which already has a section on this. Modern geocentrism seems to be the same as regular geocentrism. Some discussion of modern adherents may be appropriate. Google searches turn up rather marginal web sites. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a Coatrack for Creationism? Substantial parts of it are unsourced WP:OR. Other parts are accurate (sourced or not) but largely duplicate articles on Geocentrism, Copernicus, Newton etc. I'd support a merge to Geocentrism; there are very few sources actually for "Modern" geocentrism, which seems no different from the older kind. Perhaps some of it could be used in Creationism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geocentrism after editing it down to half. About half of this article is an OR/Synthesis essay. Topic should be covered in WIkipedia, but it can be easily and suitably done in the Geocentrism article. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Color Bars[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? These were found from a quick Google search: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. --Michig (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News, Nexis, and Google Books. I've read most of these. In many AFD debates, I have found that blogs like Chicagoist aren't considered reliable sources. Further, brief mentions or interviews with bandmembers don't confer notability. I would agree that the first article in Dayton City Paper is the most reliable, but I wouldn't say this band has significant coverage in reliable sources from just one or two articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite efforts from Michig. Needs truly reliable sources, and then more than trivial mentions. The WP:GNG calls for sources that are reliable in the sense that they have standards for editorial fact checking, and with significant coverage that's more than a trivial mention. Agree that an interview might be useful to verify some facts about the band, but not independent enough to establish notability. Vcessayist (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Wikipedical, it fails to meet the criteria in WP:BAND. Kooky2 (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I couldn't find an article on the band, but users are free to redirect it to there if they can find it. I will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wicked Comes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much available in terms of reliable sources for this album. There's some tidbits on the band but mostly on its individual members whose notability comes from being in other groups, not this one nor for the recording of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that it is an album released by a group called "Billionaires Boys' Club". I had never heard of them, but if they are a notable hard rock group, would it not be better to have an article on them and merge this article with the article on them? I shall admit that I cannot say anything with authority here, because, as I have already admitted, I had never heard of the group. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't seem to find any reliable sources to establish notability, as per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I so much agree with ACEOREVIVED. I wonder if the author might not consider this a good idea? CamillePontalec (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I would like to support up and coming bands, there really isn’t enough secondary material on this group to merit notability. I didn’t search long but after 8 google search pages, there wasn’t a single review of the band or its album available on a reliable site. The only positive for them is that they appeared in a video on NME Magazine’s website – 1 but this does not suggest notability… BarkingNigel (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rice (philanthropist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the CSD tag for A7, because there now seems to be a decent assertion of notability, but based on the sources I've added, I think this might fail based on WP:BLP1E, and I'd like to get a clear discussion on it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a single event type of notability. Nothing that could support a reliable article written from a neutral point of view. Vcessayist (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can see a slight notability in the "Shoe Giver of Tampa (SGOT)" as an article, but I fail to see how the article can be considered a biography. It doesn't even provide his date of birth not to mention his personal background. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't disagree with a redirect to a separate article for Shoe Giver of Tampa but, aside from the several sources, it appears that the group hasn't established notability. I found a news article here and a reprint through The Huffington Post and Google News archives provided three additional results, there isn't anything significant for a Jacob Rice biography (at least, not yet) or the group itself. He has certainly achieved a noble cause and attention from reliable sources but it is too soon. As for the Rice Investment Opportunities, I haven't found any sources confirming the existence of this "company" though this may also be too soon, considering it was allegedly established this year. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a classic case of WP:BLP1E. I am also very hesitent to even have BLPs of kids who are not yet of suitable age and discretion on the Project, unless they are singers/models/actors/royalty, or they clearly pass WP:GNG by more than a barely marginal level. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Elis (band). MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Schleret[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was already deleted after a proposed deletion, but it was recreated without the page history being restored, therefore most of the content of the article is not properly attributed. Furthermore, a search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notablity. SalHamton (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsurprisingly, Google News US provided several non-English sources, mostly German. The second page continues with German results but there is one English but minor mention here. I would appreciate it if a user fluent with German would determine if any of these sources are useful. Google News archives Austria provided one small mention (and dead link) that appears to be only an event listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The German news are about joining/leaving bands, e.g. statement to the press for leaving Elis, touring aso. Is this in-depth? Or writting one or two sentences to have a reason to post a picture with her? 'Not bad' looking women in metal usually have far more pictures than written text on the net. Checking [65], yes! Will pay my 5 € into the macho box later. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elis (band). --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. The many good sources at Wall Street Journal, Time, Forbes, TechCrunch, etc., prove it passes GNG. Up at AfD for over 18 days, time to move on. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crittercism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable company. No redeeming encyclopaedic value. Essentially spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH:

Kane, Yukari (2011-07-13). "App Watch: Crittercism Improves App Customer Service". WallStreetJournal.
"With $5.5M From Google Ventures, Opus, Crittercism Launches An App Performance Management Solution." TechCrunch.
Siegler, MG (2011-03-29). "The Second Cluster Of Startups Ascend From AngelPad". Techcrunch.
Empson, Rip (2011-07-13). "Crittercism Raises $1.2 Million From Kleiner Perkins And Google Ventures For App Support". Techcrunch.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Alan, you see those little numbered things at the bottom of the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of references does not equate to notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is typical company spam. No redeeming encyclopedic value. Many other startup pages created and have been deleted. This page is no different. Stealth spam. ItalianRed (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Oakenfeld23 (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references provided are press releases (republished) or trivial mentions. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Does that include the Wall Street Journal article? [66] Dream Focus 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This looks like genuine independent coverage. The article needs to be expanded with what they do, not just how much money they've raised. The source I linked can help with that. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal article, has been found. It easily passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 09:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets the GNG with articles in Time and Forbes The Steve

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earned run average minus batting average[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be original research. Mind matrix 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody's paid the slightest attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search doesn't seem to show any relevant hits. AutomaticStrikeout 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources are provided, and I can't find any either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sabermetrics if at least one reliable source is added; delete else. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A statistical neologism, if you will. If there were a Barry Hoffner bio, assuming that could be sustained, that would be the merge target. There is none, however. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a mainstream sabermetric statistic (forgive the slight oxymoron). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, this is original research...Go Phightins! 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR and lack of WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, no sources, no basis for notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Remember WENN. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth "Betty" Roberts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written in-universe, not many sources to create a substantial third-party article. PROD denied. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Sherwood —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found at this Google News archive search. There's no reason this couldn't be solved by regular editing: once the search terms were tweaked to include the series, plenty of apparently non-trivial RS'es come up. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per that same google search. That google news search only brings up 19 results, 18 of which are for obituaries, anniversaries, etc. for real individuals named Elizabeth Betty Roberts. The other search result is for the Wikipedia page in question. Other searches also bring up nothing. Seems to me that this has zero notability. Runch (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The major character is an important series. Both factors are relevant, and when they intersect, there should be an article. Sourcing problems are just a question of look for appropriate reviews & it's really more a question of how to arrange the material. Even the nom admits there are some sources. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Remember WENN article, where a character list is already present. Notability is not inherited, and no matter how notable the show is, the individual characters still need sources specifically showing why they are independantly notable. Thus far, I am finding none that discuss the character in any meaningful way. Once you actually limit the searches to just look for mentions of the character, and not for every real person who was actually named Betty Roberts, there is nothing that talks about the character in depth. There are plenty of articles that mention the character, but these are all in article describing the overall plot and concept of the show, which is hardly the in depth sources we would need in order to create an article that is WP:NOTPLOT. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of quality sources. None appear to exist. "There are google hits" isn't the same thing as finding sources, and it's apparent that the only sources that can be found are trivial mentions (obituaries). As to DGG's argument, there is no policy in place to ignore the sourcing requirements based on subjective ideas of "major" and "important". Every claim needs sources, including those. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main Remember WENN article, as per above argument. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete entirely in-universe plot summary, from the perspective of this particular character. Sources found are lacking in the depth needed to presume notability. Redirecting is technically the way to go, but the article title is awkward with the quotations so deletion would be fine as well. Them From Space 16:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chunqai Jiang[edit]

Chun Qi Jiang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case for WP:PERPETRATOR: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Ben Ben (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AfDs on crime subjects is always hard to say delete or keep. On one hand, there are plenty sources. On the other hand, there is WP:PERPETRATOR, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. At the moment, I have to go with delete as Jiang has only been charged with the murder. He is only known for this one event. I think an argument can be made to have the murder case have its own article. FYI... his name can be order different ways. It can be Chun Qi Jiang and Jiang Chunqi. Bgwhite (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very clear case of WP:PERPETRATOR. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dhirgham Ismail[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While this is a clear-case Delete, I think it would be benificial to wait with nominate it for deletion until after the Iraq national team match. I don't see the point in starting this now, when he might pass the notability guideline in 7 days. --Mentoz86 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/review/how-survive-end-world-we-know-it-tactics-techniques-and-technologies-uncertain-times
^ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/07/The-Desolate-Wasteland-of-Post-Apocalyptic-Television
^ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/nancy-rawles/my-jim/
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_Shannon

[House_&_Garden-1] House & Garden. Condé Nast Publications, Limited. 2005. p. 184. Retrieved 17 October 2012.

[Ceramic_Review-2] Ceramic Review. Craftsmen Potters Association of Great Britain. 1990. p. 36. Retrieved 17 October 2012.

[3] ttp://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/review/how-survive-end-world-we-know-it-tactics-techniques-and-technologies-uncertain-times

[4] ttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/07/The-Desolate-Wasteland-of-Post-Apocalyptic-Television

[5] ttps://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/nancy-rawles/my-jim/

[6] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terry_Shannon

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[pb 1]