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. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclined to agree with the above that there is not a lot of in-depth WP:SIGCOV and he is still 1 top tier fight shy of meeting WP:NMMA. Mkdwtalk 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Technically fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights but he also has notable fights against Robert Drysdale and Anthony Johnson both of them were televised and watched by a decent amount of people. Entity of the Void (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that imply inherent notable? He fought notable people so must be notable? If there is not significant coverage about him as a result beyond run of the mill coverage then it's a hard argument to say we keep it. Perhaps a trivial mention at the Robert Drysdale and Anthony Johnson articles since its likely that's what the articles are focused on and not enough to establish for a stand alone article. Mkdwtalk 07:09, 28 April 2013 (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.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At present, there is far too much speculation in this article, even if it's sourced speculation. The first sentence says it all: "due to release their fourth studio album at some point in 2013." Totally fine with re-userfying this until a more precise release date is available. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's impossible for something which not only doesn't exist, but doesn't even have a name, to be notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. HillbillyGoat (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2013 (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.
Content fork of McNulty. Any famous McNulty's should go on the page related to the surname. Additionally Wikipedia isn't here for geneological purposes and articles aren't created solely to aid in research. Canterbury Tailtalk 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a merger with McNulty will serve any purpose, considering this eccentric new article consists of questionable original research, a whole bunch of people who don't have the surname McNulty and a whole lot more who are unverified/unsourced. It seems to have been created by an author whose edits/unsourced additions were (correctly) reverted in the McNulty article. Sionk (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom that this is at best redundant to McNulty. A wholesale merger is uncalled for, but there should at least be a quick scan before deleting to make sure all of the genuine McNulty articles are listed where they should be. postdlf (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the legitimate entries to McNulty. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge Obviously a duplicate of McNulty. It should be straightforward to verify the existence of some of the other people, if not their notability: people without Wikipedia articles can be listed if they're likely to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge Merge into McNulty those who qualify to be on that page. Canuck89(converse with me) 03:20, April 23, 2013 (UTC)
Selective merge or Retain with editing Merge List of all McNulty on this List and upon whom Wikipedia Articles exist into article for surname McNulty. There is only one argument made here for deletion under the Wikipedia: Deletion Policy, which argument clearly does not apply to the entire or, even, a majority of the List. This argument is that the material is original research. To be original research under Wikipedia's deletion policy, the material must not be verifiable. The vast majority of the persons on the List are linked to already existing Wikipedia articles about them, which articles, themselves, contain verifiablein line citations. The alternative resolution suggested by most, even, the person, who originally recommended the List for deletion (which resolution is that the List be edited to contain only the McNultys, who are linked to Wikipedia articles about them, and incorporated more appropriately into the McNulty surname article) is a more reasonable solution to the problem that information for some persons on the List is not verified by in line citation than deletion of the List entirely. Note that McNaulty, McAnulty and McEnulty are variant historical spellings of McNulty and that the names may appear with the Gaelic Mac or anglicized Mc prefix dropped as Nulty and Naulty. Also, Mac an Ultaigh is the original name and Clonoulty is another anglicized variant along with McNolty, McNolte and McNull.
There is also sound reason for retaining the List, itself, but separately from the McNulty article, with only those persons who are not linked to a separate Wikipedia article on them redacted from the List (wether surnamed McNulty or not) and with an improved titling for the list. The list is relevant to the history of Ireland, at least European Medical History and, particularly to the MacDonlevy dynasty, who were the last line of rulers of the ancient Irish Kingdom of UltoniaKings of Ulster and one of the ancient hereditary medical families of Ireland, who adopted the surname McNulty as an agnomen surname (See John O'Hart, Irish Pedigrees, 1871, cited in List article. See also entries in Annals of the Four Masters noting Donlevy using McNulty alias in Tyrconnell) and whose decendants, including the missionary doctor David Livingstone (See reference to Black also in List article) often operated under non obvious habitual surnames. (See references to Black and Paul McNulty in the List article) The List is also relevant to the MacDonlevy's continued profound influence in diaspora on Western society in as far flung regions as Argentina and their identification. (See Susan Wilkinson "Early Medical Education in Ireland", Irish Medical Studies in Latin America, Vol. 5, No. 3, Nov. 2008.) Also, I do not understand why historical researchers, including genealogical researchers, should not be anticipated to use the Wikipedia as a research tool.Albiet (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Albiet Albiet (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Albiet Albiet (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Albiet Albiet (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Albiet[reply]
Merge with McNulty. First, capitalizing every word in the title is kind of a red flag for a "bad" article. Second, everyone listed on McNulty is by default "socially or historically significant" because of WP:Notability, so there is no need for a separate article. Any historical or genealogical researchers would go to that page first, in any case. Ansh666 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to McNulty per other selective merge recommendations above. --Metropolitan90(talk) 02:49, 28 April 2013 (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. No evidence this road ever existed - former secondary routes in Florida were turned over to the counties in the 1970s, but retained their numbers as county roads. It may have been planned (in which case it could be in a Unbuilt Florida state roads article, perhaps), so I hesitate to call it a WP:HOAX, but there is no chance of this article not being deleted, so closing per WP:SNOW. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked on the web but couldn't find anything. Whatever this was, it is not useful without references. Fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. This road doesn't seem to exist. TCN7JM 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless information can be found. Dough4872 03:01, 22 April 2013 (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.
Unremarkable plane. Only one was ever made and there have been no reliable sources added to it since it was tagged as needing some in 2009. Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Technical 13 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS and results at AfD, all individual make-and-model aircraft types are notable, much as all make-and-model vehicle types are. In addition, sources have been added clearly demonstrating that this "unremarkable" type passes WP:GNG comfortably. Note that sources need only exist, not be in the article, and WP:NOEFFORT is a argument to avoid. Also "only one was ever made" is not a valid argument; only one Spruce Goose was ever made, for instance. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add some more reliable sources and information and I'll withdraw my nomination. Your Spruce Goose example is well documented with 24+ referenced resources, yet the only reference I could find for this with a Google search is our own article and it doesn't get much more circular than that. Technical 13 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per consensus just because it is marked for attention and needs more work is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There now appears to be enough references to demonstrate notability. It appears that it could be significantly expanded by someone with access to the full version of the edition of Jane's All The World's Aircraft that is currently linked as a snippet view. There should also be more coverage in other off line sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG has been met. That only one aircraft was built does not affect the notability of the type. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2013 (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.
Delete for reasons given above. I think much of it is inaccurate too. Peacock (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ansh666 21:24, 24 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caution: NSFW. I do not believe this person or his "works" to be notable. The sources provided are very minimal and not RS. Searching Google, there doesn't appear to be anything discussing the person at the level necessary for a Wikipedia article. It seems to me to essentially be 2 Girls 1 Cup minus the notability. Chris857 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mere making of shock videos does not confer notability, without more. HillbillyGoat (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided really are reliable. I suppose that the nominator should read WP:DISC. Also I added 2 sources - articles about Alexey in lurkmore.to and in wikireality.ru. Qnyx77 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must be trolling us) Lurkmore as a source? I wouldn't go that far even despite contributing there myself. Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the above "keep" is by the article's creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No claims or proofs of notability for either the jar-sitting deed of courage or the blogs and sites that posted about it. I'm almost sure that many Lurkmore and Bestgore readers stuff their body cavities with broken glass. Happy stuffing, Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Um, ew. But besides that (WP:NOTCENSORED, after all), it doesn't seem very notable. People make all sorts of videos showing themselves/other people doing lots of things. No need to have an article on al of them, as per WP:BLP1E. And in response to above, WP:NOTABILITY is not the same as WP:VERIFIABILITY. Ignatzmice•talk 05:31, 23 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Buzzword with no notability outside of its use as a popular book's title. Not worth merging with Peter Drucker (per the page) since there is little encyclopedic info to move. Alternatively, I would support a page for the renowned book by the same title, but it would require rewriting this article from scratch anyway. czar·· 15:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I don't know as I'd go so far as to call it unambiguous advertisement, but it does seem like an advertisement of some sort. Alternatively, redirect to Peter Drucker (and maybe create Effective Executive for proper capitalization of the book, and redirect that as well). Ignatzmice•talk 05:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Drucker, since it's conceivable that somebody would come looking for it. Ansh666 21:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Effective Executive, the actual title of his book, is already redirecting, so the additional redirect isn't necessary. czar·· 00:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't notice that. In that case, delete. Ansh666 01:09, 25 April 2013 (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.
Keep I favor a relatively low threshold for inclusion of articles about political parties, especially for opposition parties in one-party states like Cuba where natural opportunities for coverage by reliable sources are constrained. That being said, this party easily meets the general notability guideline. Spanish Wikipedia has a better referenced article that could provide sources for expansion of the article in English, Partido Arco Progresista. A Google News Archive search for the Spanish name "Partido Arco Progresista" yields a fair amount of coverage, such as this article about a 2010 party congress, this 2008 article about the party's stand on cooperation between Cuba and the European Union and this article in a German publication about the party and its leader. Frankly, I fail to detect a promotional tone, though the article can certainly use expansion, referencing and copy editing. This is a matter for the normal editorial process, and deletion is not the solution, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NONPROFIT, "organizations are usually notable ... if the scope of their activities is national or international in scale" (as a national political party is) *AND* if information about the organization is verifiable by "multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources"; citations provided by User:Cullen328 and Phil Bridger provide the sources. --Lquilter (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I echo Jim/Cullen's sentiments that we should have a comparatively permissive attitude towards the inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia SHOULD include. One of two social democratic opposition parties in Cuba, per the page on the group in Spanish Wikipedia. Sourcing is not what it should be and it appears the organization's website is down; nevertheless, the sourcing Jim provides seems sufficient. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any independent reliable sources on the subject. All the current sources are attributed to "Ebony Veney," who appears to be related to the subject. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage about her. The article is a rambling biography which never clearly states what she is supposed to be noted for. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! - I will be working with Holly on Friday to figure out the best way to express her involvement in the production and promotion of underground r&b music in the DMV area. • Msilbe2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failed to fulfill the criteria. Heavily promotional article, also I have suspect about nobility of this person. Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage for which his own publications do not count. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when googling her name, I only find the same information that I find when googling every Norwegian guy; tax-lists and their entry in the online telephone directory, but no coverage in reliable sources that makes her pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that, for [Lightning Memory-Mapped Database], notability has not been established by references to reliable sources. Of the six citations, four appear to be from the product's producer, one (from Google) does not mention the product, and one (from Zimbra) is just a wiki page. The Lightning Database looks like a wonderful product with prospects for great success, but it hasn't achieved that yet. See WP:NN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
peter, such a request from you, who worked years for one database manufacturer, namely oracle / mysql, might be perceived of having a conflict of interest. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been speedy deleted five times and it keeps coming back. I believe at this point a discussion is in order to determine if we should either have this article or delete it and create-protect it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although this has been speedy deleted five times I think now the page should stay as the band seem to be growing in popularity and now have more reliable sources to backup the info stated on the page. They have just a single in the Official UK charts and Official iTunes charts, as well playing to 40thousand+ people on tour with Lawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotalemon (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The links in the article do not verify that the single charted. The claims about sold out concerts and playing with notable performers are unreferenced. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this band of the sort necessary to show notability. If such coverage exists, bring it forward for discussion here, and/or add it to the article, please. Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The charting criteria for WP:BAND refers to singles within national charts, which in the UK is the UK Singles Chart. The single in question "Chasing the Summer" charts so low at #160 that the band isn't even represented on the official site [1]. I wouldn't consider this enough to satisfy inclusion. The touring criteria relies on in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, usually in some form of review, which this announcement [2] does not seem to meet. Neither does playing one show abroad. Five recreations in the past two years for this six year old band may imply that things aren't going too well for them. FunnyPika! 21:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave them the benefit of the doubt, based upon the above, that perhaps they just don't understand what kind of sources are necessary to prove notability. However, the more I look for sources, and the more I research them (for example, venue size), the less notable they appear to be. After five prior speedy deletions (and in light of my opinion that it's bad precedent to keep an article on a non-notable subject only because the subject keeps re-creating it), I agree with create-protect as well. HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More References have been provided to prove notability. There are many wiki pages about artists/bands and other things who have A LOT less references then this page. The single in question "Chasing The Summer" was in actual fact on the Official Chart website as it was #7 on the Indie Single Breakers Chart and #24 on the Indie/Alternative charts. For the user who said 6 years and five wiki deletions means it is going well for them, silly thing to say. Most bands/artists don't "make it" for years - well, unless you're an X Factor artist... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotalemon (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. An unsigned band, who have produced one own label album, and manage to sell out when they play in small venues. Still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The band are selling out 800 capacity size venues, although unsigned - they still qualify for a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.94.116 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2013 (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.
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.
This subject fails WP:BASIC criteria. None of his achievements are notable singularly or in the aggregate. Where he does appear in coverage, he's most often speaking about the true topic of coverage in his capacity as a representative (fails WP:42). Lots of WP:BLPPRIMARY, too. JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has an article on his career: http://www.bodmagazine.co.uk/domino/html/BoD6digi/index.html#/19/zoomed (Smilecreator)
As of 25th June 2012 he founded the Dental Charity Heart Your Smile registered with the Charity Commission, registration number: 1147806, he is on the board of trustees:
http://www.heartyoursmile.co.uk/about-us/ (Smilecreator)
Comment ...First UK dentist to use a PR company to write a Wikipedia entry... He urgently needs to find another PR company. Dalliance (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entry was written by Andy Rossiter, no PR company. (Smilecreator)
Delete slightly disappointed this made it through the AFC process just over a year ago. Ignoring the above comment, which was added to the article at a later date, most of the page reads like a sanitised resume. Creating a business does not infer notability and neither does become a director of an organisation. None of his achievements are supported by in-depth reliable sources, meaning that this fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. FunnyPika! 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search reveals that he's regularly consulted and interviewed by major UK press outlets, so he's clearly viewed as an expert in his field, and thus is notable enough for inclusion. I suggest that the article be rewritten and properly sourced, to both reflect the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and remove the promotional tone of the current article. (On a related note, I would also suggest that he immediately fire his PR company, because they definitely did him no favors with this Wikipedia entry.) HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So every expert is notable? I'm unconvinced that single part of the wider criteria would be enough to carry this subject over the threshold. Commentary on the actual topic of coverage, especially as a spokesperson, isn't really coverage of his expertise. If he were the subject of coverage by unrelated parties, namely about his expertise in the field, that would be another story entirely. Then, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG might be clearly met... JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we had British Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, I might hAVE VOTED "keep", based on his presidency of it. If the press want a comment on his subject, they are likely to look to the head of his professional organisation, but being head ofg a NN organisation cannot make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the organisation exists, and that Goolnik is a founder member of it does not make him notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI feel I can improve the article and offer valuable information,defining more relating to his book and charity; while linking it to other articles and Wiki definitions. talk—Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — BrendaGreenUSA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, but can you show evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If he doesn't, then no amount of rewriting the article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a national organization does usually mean notability if the organization is important, which means either WP notability or apparent eligibility for it as the major professional association in a field. The organization meets this and should have an article, and so should he. A rewriting is indicated--I'd have improved it further before accept it from AfC, the usual standard for accepting an AfC is that the article is not likely to be reasonably challenged at AfD, not that it just barely get a pass here after a reasonable challenge. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, DGG, I am sure that you have enough experience to know that notability is not inherited. Even if the organisation is notable, we still need evidence that Goolnik is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. (Besides, you have provided no evidence that the organisation is notable, apart from simply stating that it is. "The major professional association in a field"? Maybe, but I have seen no source that says so.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the advice of WP:ATA#Notability is inherited is widely regarded. I think if you re-read the examples in the section you point to you will recognize that they are all examples of incidental or coincidental association. Being chosen to be the president, or an officer, of an organization, is a form of peer recognition. So, if the organization of your peers has some notability, than being recognized by them conveys notability. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cleaned up the article some. Appears notable. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I found Daily Mail, The Times and The Guardian citations, which I added to the article. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article that you cited gives two short quotes from Goolnik. The Daily Mail consulted Goolnik to provide an opinion on a subject they were reporting on: he was not himself the subject they were reporting on. The page on the Times web site that you cited gives no more than a two-sentence mention of him. It looks as though it may be an excerpt from an article that is not fully available online, in which case the full article may or may not give substantial coverage of him, but that is speculation, and not verifiable. As far as the pages you have actually cited go, there is nothing that could be regarded as substantial coverage of Goolnik. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Easily meets requirements, referencing just needs improving. Quit the preachy hounding of everybody Watson, it's doing you no favours.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability based, in part on peer recognition, on being widely chosen for comment by the press, and being an author, clearly push him past the boundary for notability. Geo Swan (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (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. MBisanztalk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference listed is dead and the link to the website of the subject of the article is dead. It has been listed since 2007 with nothing having been done despite a clean up tag. With the dead links there does not seem to be any purpose in keeping this article Kanuk (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to Folio Magazine, Schofield Media closed its US operations, including the Chicago branch which published Venture Magazine. Given that the article is inconsequential, and the magazine is no longer being published, I agree that there's no purpose in keeping it. HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak articles on notable topics are kept, to be improved, not deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former magazines can be notable. This article should be kept at least as a dab. There are at least two notable Venture magazines. There is one that was founded in 1964 and folded in 1971 (NYTimes, WSJ). Another debuted famously in 1979 (NYTimes) and was sold in 1988 (WashPost).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability doesn't go away just because an organization is unfortunately defunct in the present when it had secondary source coverage in the past. — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Please -- I urge the nominator to follow the advice of WP:BEFORE. We are all volunteers here. Please don't waste the time of other volunteers by nominating articles for deletion when a web search can show you in just a few seconds that it is on a notable topic. Geo Swan (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Venture Magazine Is Sold In Latest Industry Shakeout". Washington Post. 1988-07-14. p. f.03. Retrieved 2013-04-15. Venture, a monthly magazine pitched to entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, had circulation of 450,000, but was struggling to make it into the advertising budgets of the nation's top corporate and consumer advertisers.
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. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article does not assert any evidence of notability.--FileÉireann 14:49, 24 April 2013 (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 deleteWP:CSD#G3blatant hoax. It is right to be cautious about speedy-deleting hoaxes, because surprising things are sometime true; but the evidence here is overwhelming and there is no need for this to linger for a week. JohnCD (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a request for speedy ('vandalism') as I feel discussion is needed. I am not happy about the easily accessible references, and from the main bulk of ghits for the title being at deviantart, I am dubious about the inaccessible ones too. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Dracosuchus" gives 157 results, most of which are from deviantART, were the name was given to several different imaginary creatures.
Google search for "Dracosuchus ornithonychus" gives only this article.
Refs are fake, or not connected to the (fake) subject:
Both Marsh (1892) refs cannot be located online, even at archives of the American Journal of Science that allegedly published them.
Dinohunter ref is real, but supports only the existence of the name Dracosaurus (Aggasiz, 1846).
Paul Sereno' site doesn't have an entry named "Dracosuchus: Junior Synonym of Ceratosaurus?" or any reference of "Dracosuchus" for that matter..
Here is the real Marsh (1884) that allegedly named "Dracosuchus". It doesn't even mention that name!
The book "The Dinosauria" (that I own) doesn't mention it either, as it can be searched using books.google.com .
Same for "Dinosaur Crime Scene Investigations".
There is no paleontological database (or "genera list") that lists that name.
(from the article' talk page by me) Rnnsh (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: NO results of searching "Dracosuchus" in the news (google), books (google), images (google), scholar or JSTOR.
Thus I vote for Speedy delete.Rnnsh (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Keri (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, speedy delete as a hoax with fake references. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Zero hits in Google books and Google scholar, other than this hoax article. The editor responsible has only a single edit under this account - posting this hoax - but must have previous Wikipedia experience. Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:39, 21 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party refeerences (only referenced to the website of the company itself). A brief Google search has found nothing but business listings, and the only claim of notability in the article is that they operate in 15 states of USA. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be written like an advertisement and I am not sure it meats WP:Notability - DeleteRadioactiveplayful (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I as able to find this article but that's it. Insufficient for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient evidence of notability in secondary sources (news, journal articles, reliable web sites). Although this company has written much about itself on the web, multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, are not available. - tucoxn\talk 22:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement/business listing (WP:NOTYELLOW) Ansh666 21:28, 24 April 2013 (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.
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.
Appears to be a non-notable hotel. The current sourcing in the article provides a combination of passing references in a few guidebook lists, press releases, and promotional content released by the hotel and government. I am unable to search in Korean, so perhaps someone can turn up reliable sourcing there, but I have been unable to, and as such this appears to be a run of the mill hotel with no notability claims. Having a revolving restaurant appears to be the most unique feature among its others of having a library, billiard room, soft drink counter and shop. None of these are truly distinctive without some notability established for them in independent reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Architecturally looks a prominent building [3]. See the lobby here. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:26, 22 April 2013 (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. MBisanztalk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources to confirm that the tribe described in the article really existed. The tags have been added for 3 months and there is still not a single reference to confirm the (rather ostentatious) claims made here. The article appears to be a Hoax. Jingiby (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The word seems to be a fairly common last name in Albania, but a search for "Zagorcani -wikipedia byzantine empire" (as claimed in the article) didn't turn up anything but WP mirrors. This file (which is on Drougoubitai, a linked page) doesn't show them. This sitedoes show them, but it's the only one that does. Ignatzmice•talk 06:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. If any reliable third party shows that the Zagorcani existed, then it's doubtful that the article is an outright hoax. The site linked to states in their "about" section that the maps are based off of "several references and primary sources". Still, there don't seem to be a lot of sources on the group, so notability doesn't seem established unless ethnic groups are inherently notable. If they are inherently notable, though, then I would suggest keep (per WP:Verifiability, since information is so limited and there is no compelling reason to believe that their existence is a fringe theory). Chri$topher 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have checked also sources in Russian, Bulgarian and Macedonian sources. No such name of a Slavic tribe was found, neither through Google Books, nor through Google Schoolar, even by simple Google surch. Jingiby (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the subject of the article appears to be very poorly documented, this would appear to signify a non-notable group rather than an outright hoax if there are verifiable pages describing its existence independent of the article creator (which there appears to be). Many ancient European tribal groups have limited mentions in the literature of the time period, particularly if they didn't significantly impact major empires. I think that this is a good faith article rather than an outright hoax, but I don't believe that its topic is notable. Chri$topher 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest, it was not a separate tribe, but probably a distinct clan of some from the Slavic tribes in that area. However, I also don't believe that this topic is notable. Jingiby (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2013 (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.
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.
Non-notable, as an event does not really exist other than as an idea. Even the organization that promotes it is non-notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources appear to be from the sponsors of the event.Mdtemp (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objection! - International Aiki Peace Week is since 2010 a yearly event with hundreds of participating dojos in many countries. If somebody thinks it does not really exist other than an idea, I ask him to go to the Google map of participating dojos (reference 4). Or to have a Google search for "International Aiki Peace Week" and explain why the about 12.000 entries found on hundreds of websites of Aikido dojos all over the world are "non-notable". The Wikipedia article for International Aiki Peace Week certainly deserves further improvement, but no deletion!--Jobo44 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) — Jobo44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Objection- As an organizer of this event and a participant since inception, IAPW has been very real indeed. Apart from requiring a huge amount of energy and effort, the reality is that it has helped connect me with many teachers in the UK and abroad in a way that would never have happened had it never happened. The comments made by the gentleman who suggests deleting this page are totally incorrect and show a considerable amount of ignorance not only about IAPW, but also about Aiki Extensions, the international group whose initiative this is.--86.14.226.94 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, there's a very clear conflict on interest in your argument. The discussion here is about the best interests of Wikipedia in terms of it's notability guidelines, not a platform to promote your event. Secondly, the nomination does not need to be an expert on your event as to whether they get to nominate it or not. Our discussion here is that based upon our own findings, your event appears to be non-notable in terms of Wikipedia's guideline. Mkdwtalk 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The question here is whether this event meets wikipedia's inclusion criteria for having an article. This is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There ARE independent reliable sources. Yoshimitsu Yamada Shihan of the USAF spoke out in support of the International Aiki Peace Week in the USAF monthly newsletter a few months after the initial launch of the effort (as seen here [2]). I would hope that the USAF newsletter is considered a reliable source for news about Aikido. RobertKent2013 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — RobertKent2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I don't think it can be considered an independent source. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May be you don´t think, but wikipedia says: materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.--Jobo44 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of independent. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other options here including creating an article for Aiki Extensions with primary sources (blogs, youtube videos, newsletters and websites are not reliable primary sources - news articles are) and merging the article into that one or merging the article into International Day of Peace. There is a marked difference between notability for those involved in a project/program and notability in the context of Wikipedia as discussed in the inclusion criteria above. As a stand alone article this one just does not meet those requirements. I am not so sure Aiki Extensions would either for the same reasons but that remains to be seen. As an aside (for those that want to shoot the messenger) I am not so ignorant (or against) the overall concepts or organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peter, at the beginning you said: "Non-notable, as an event does not really exist other than as an idea." Knowing the facts about IAPW can you explain that please? --195.93.60.34 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Event as in gathering of people in one place.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources and existing does not mean it's notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following the wikipedia criteria for reliable sources this article meets the criteria.
"Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content."
If somebody argues this article lacks independent sources, then he should proof that for all given sources. --Jobo44 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Jobo44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:BURDEN indicates that the burden of proof is on the editor that makes the claims of notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You only get to !vote once Jobo44. Mkdwtalk 21:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The emphasis on the single quote used in the reception section "Aiki Peace Week is an excellent idea. —M. Tani, International Department, Hombu Dojo, Aikido World Headquarters, e-mail of June 4, 2010, to the IAPW organizing committee. " indicates the lack of available independent sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage of this event. Papaursa (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single purpose editors and the event organizer who have !voted keep (sometimes more than once) have not provided compelling guideline based arguments as to why this event meets GNG and RS. Mkdwtalk 21:17, 29 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a routine discrimination lawsuit - company refuses to do business with couple, couple sues business, business settles with couple. There are no indications that this case made any lasting impact on the wider community. FunnyPika! 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable lawsuit, since it does not (and cannot) stand as precedent. Furthermore the article itself is insignificant, in that it fails to provide even the most basic information regarding the basis for the lawsuit. HillbillyGoat (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—but, but, but it's about Vermont! Where I live! Awwww. It may possibly be notable as confirmation of VT equal-rights laws, but (IANAL) I'd think the fact that they settled would mean it actually isn't. Ignatzmice•talk 06:19, 23 April 2013 (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 delete per WP:CSD#A7. For those of you requesting the article be salted, one recreation is insufficient, in my view, to salt. Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedy deleted previously. Honourable local business in Kent, England, with a grand total of 5 shops. Zero independent reliable coverage demonstrated by 3rd party coverage. I have been conversing with the author, who claims not to be the owner/employee of this company, but is apparently getting very angry because his page was deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Wikipedia, being the most comprehensive enclyopedia in the world, should aim to try and have as many articles as possible and it seems strange that you seem to not agree for an article about the 7th largest optician chain/optometrist in the UK. As I am sure you have seen, I have changed the page so it appears more neutral and I will happily include more infomation about the company when I can be confirmed that the page will stay. I am dedicating my day to the survival of the Wilkinsons...the Opticians page. What harm does the Wilkinsons...the Opticians page give you?--Dippoldtheoptician (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The aim is not to write about everything. Most encyclopedias have certain standards - to prevent me from writing about some random person off the street for example, and here is no different. This local business does not meet the criteria for companies, i.e. it is not covered in-depth by independent reliable sources, so I don't see a reason for this article to remain. Please note that Wikipedia is not meant to be a business directory, used to list or promote companies. FunnyPika! 13:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not listen to these uninformed Wikipedia users - one of which cannot even spell 'independent' properly.. I will be really depressed for life if you delete the mighty Wilkinsons..the Opticians page and I am angry that the creation of this page is an issue. Wilkinsons...the Opticians is not a controversial subject so why shouldn't there be a page on it. I will re-iterate - Wilkinsons...the Opticians is the 7th largest optician chain in the UK. There is an article on Roger Pope & Partners which is just has one outlet in London. You will keep the page.--Dippoldtheoptician (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this, but that's the way it is. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We can delete the other article also, by discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business of the most worthy and good kind, but with no reliable sources and no special claim to fame. Very likely its purpose is also advertising. Created by SPA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable business, suggest salting based on the tone of the SPA ("you will keep the page"... nice) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 19:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real evidence of notability. Consider salting because of comments by SPA above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salting is a very good suggestion. No notability established and WP:COI by the SPA is highly likely. MarnetteD | Talk 23:53, 21 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly speedily. Artspam - an apparent article whose only purpose is the link. (Interesting that the quote marks in the top line are not the standard English flying commas, but those used in French and several other Continental languages.) Peridon (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced spam for a Los Angeles attorney specializing in car dealer fraud. I removed the spam link, which can be seen in the article's history.Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing the second one, Gene93k. I removed that one too. Cullen328Let's discuss it 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Removed another link from the main body of the article. I did leave it as an external link, in case the original editor had intents other than spam and was just not sure how to go about posting references. Still, I recommend delete, because at the least, this is Original Research, and there's a decent chance that it's Outright Spam. Chri$topher 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On looking at the article history, this is pretty likely advertising for the company, given that the original version of the article included a direct suggestion to visit the company website as a resource if someone felt that they had fallen victim to car dealer theft, and given that much of its content was copied verbatim from the linked page. Recommend delete, and possibly speedy delete if an intentional violation of WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT is suspected by others, rather than an innocent mistake which looks like spam. Chri$topher 19:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as former artspam and current copy from outside source. Ansh666 21:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The car dealer fraud article now appears to have none of the links which originally led to the suspicion of spam, and has three references. The section "What to do when falling victim to car dealer fraud" has also been removed by the article creator. It appears that what I believed to be verbatim copying was actually just very similar wording to the website. Because of this, before a final decision is made to keep or delete the article, it would probably be a good idea to review the current iteration of the page. Grammar issues are still substantial, and I am unsure if the level of detail needs to be this in-depth. It does make me a little less skeptical that this article was created in good faith, though. I really hate to personally raise concerns of spam if they aren't totally justified. Chri$topher 17:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at those three references? Only one is half-decent, but even that only covers the last section. Most of it is still OR from a spam source. Ansh666 18:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Close copying that is near enough to make you even think it's the same is far too close. That sort of thing still falls under copyvio here. As to 'good faith', I see quite a lot of this sort of thing at CSD. It's known as 'art-spam', and it gets into forums and probably usenet as well. Anywhere you can post freely. Can be quite cleverly done at times. At others, they just stick links to fake handbag sites in at random in something totally irrelevant and often not even meaningful. (Those get chopped on first sight and the perpetrator gets auto-blocked to slow them down.) Peridon (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2013 (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. this content, without prejudice to re-creation as a redirect if there is a useful target. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable sources to confirm that the events described in the article really happened. The "citation" and "POV" tags have been added for 3 months and there is still not a single reference to confirm the (rather ostentatious) claims made here. The article appears to be a translation of its Bulgarian and/or Russian versions, which do not have a source either apart from a webpage. Note that there was a Monastir Offensive at the end of 1916, but that one is described in another article and is well-sourced.
Yes, Delete as not verified and it cannnot be easily verified via English searches on internet. Iselilja (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there was action to the north of Monastir during that time frame, but I could not find references providing this level of detail. (The available references are actually a muddled up mess that seem to contradict each other.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:HOAX. I cannot find any reliable sources that can verify that this event exists, therefore it fails WP:GNG. There are reliable sources regarding a battle of this name occurring in 1912, but not in 1917.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed looks like a hoax from 2008 unless there a reliable sources that I have not found. The original author was Gligan whom I have notified. Mcewan (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears there may have been a Battle of Monastir in 1916, that was a French victory [5], but not this. - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I located a brief reference in the Almanac of World War I. In case the Google Books preview link doesn't work for everyone, it reads, "17 May 1917....Salonika: A combined Italian-French attack to the north of Monastir fails, as the Germans and Bulgarians have reinforced their front lines." Aside from the minor discrepancy in date (the article gives "May 18"), this does support the basic claim that the French suffered a defeat near Monastir. At the very least the article is not a WP:HOAX, although notability has yet to be demonstrated. I also searched the Google newspaper archive for stories mentioning Monastir published between March and May 1917 (see query). Apparently, French forces did attack German defenders at Monastir in March 1917 [6]. Newspaper reports dated May 18 declare that the British and French were making good progress against the Central Powers on the Macedonian front ([7],[8]) - which does seem somewhat contradictory with respect to the article and the statement from the Almanac. I suspect that historical sources published in French, Italian, Bulgarian, Russian, or Macedonian may contain a fuller account of the events that transpired at that time. For anyone interested in searching further, the sources accompanying Battle of the Cerna Bend (1917) also appear to be promising sources in which to look for information about this battle. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the battle existed, the lack of sources both listed in the article and on web searches points to non-notability. Ansh666 21:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice - if not a complete hoax, it is completely unsupported by general sources on the Salonika Front, as the current article states the defenders were Bulgarian not German per above. Utterly un-notable as a purported Bulgarian-French battle if it occurred at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of the Cerna Bend (1917). I agree with the others that the article's content should be deleted in light of the failure to satisfy WP:GNG and the general untrustworthiness of the unreferenced material. However, it is my view that the article itself should be preserved as a redirect. A fresh search turned up two additional sources. One applies the label "the second battle of Monastir" (9-14 May 1917)" to this engagement ([9]) and the other describes how "The second battle of Bitola, also known as the second battle of the Cherna Bend, began on 5 May 1917..." [10]. ("Monastir" was the name of the city during Ottoman times; by the outbreak of WWI, it was also known under the alternate name Bitola so "Battle of Bitola" and "Battle of Monastir" are just different labels for the same event.) These sources demonstrate that "Battle of Monastir (1917)" is a valid alternate descriptor for the "Battle of the Cerna Bend" and hence a potential search term. WP already has an article on this battle which is a logical redirect destination. Moreover, redirects are cheap (WP:CHEAP). --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2013 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV when conducting WP:BEFORE. The one source it has is a store link to purchase the game, and the article creator, 'David' used his name in the reference (maybe a COI but obviously very circumstantial). Seems like a game that exists, professionally published, just not notable. Mkdwtalk 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a non-notable game, previously deleted at AfD, and it makes no attempt at showing notability. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 09:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the CSD nomination: I thought it would be best not to speedy the article since the source it currently cites was present neither in the article's previous incarnation, nor in its previous deletion discussion. Furthermore, since the concerns raised at its first AfD revolved around its notability and coverage in external sources, I thought it best that the present discussion be played out here, rather than the article's fate being unilaterally decided by a Sysop. It Is Me Heret / c 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, though that PlayAsia shopping product listing looks miles short of being a WP:RS. At best, it confirms existence, not notability. AllyD (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot prove notability via Google or VGRS search for this recent game. No more than passing mentions as a launch title. Wasn't backed by sources to prove notability upon reinstatement. czar·· 16:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I should have noted that this game was only released in Japan, and I'd reconsider if credible Japanese sources surface. czar·· 00:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Awful writing. 2 sentences with one stating: @field is where golf and pinball met. Doesn't meet WP:Notability. Radioactiveplayful (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again - non-notable and probably intended as advertising. Ansh666 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before, still non-notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:38, 27 April 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 12:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehttp://www.rescen.net/Richard_Layzell/ordmov/lisards.html refers to them being 15 inches at most - and I am not saying that is a reliable source as it appears to be connected to some sort of performance. Caesar Rochefort appears in 22 ghits, virtually all spun off from this article. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Changed !vote, see below): Verified: Here is the relevant chapter in the French original of Rochefort's book: (144–146). Notable? Very likely - a confirmed species is inherently notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 21:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am, however, quite uncertain about whether Rochefort's five-foot-long iguana-like lizard is the the same as the fifteen-inch "land pike", whose description is also attributed to Rochefort [11]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here is Rochefort's description of the same creature: (149–150). Definitely not the same creature. Wikipedia's article is a conflation of both descriptions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 22:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever more confusing. In this article (apparently written by an expert) states that the "Brochet de terre" (which is translated in older English works as "land pike", and corresponds to the fifteen-inch "squeakinge lisard") is the Mabuya mabouya, which was called "mabuya" by Carib natives—but de Rochefort clearly distinguishes between the "terrifying" mabouja and the fish-like brochet de terre. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 22:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Rochefort-Antilles-p151If it is a species then it is notable, however I am of the impression that the term "Squeakinge Lisard" refers to lizards in general on the island due to the noise they make. The term Squeakinge Lisard seems to come from later works like Vincent Hubbard's recent books. Rochefort did some drawings of the lizards, on page 151 of the book [12] of which one definitely meets the description.Martin451 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rochefort's illustrations are in order of his descriptions: the five-foot lizard corresponds to the first drawing; the mabouja is omitted; and the brochet de terre—that which is described by Rochefort as squeaking—looks distinctly fish-like, in accordance with his own description, and nothing like the modern Mabuya mabouya, I think. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My french is very poor, and I have little chance with 360 year old text. Brochet de terr seems to translate to earth pike, which seems to be the lizard in question, albeit 15inches not 5 feet. The Mabuya mabouya looks like the forth picture Gobe mouchesMartin451 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A later book refering to Rochefort which can be parsed through google translate [13]. keep with a dose of scepticism.Martin451 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be worth having a look at the "fish" on page 184 [14] and the other one on page 204 [15]. They look like a flying fish, and a fish with a sheeps head. Martin451 (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say keep when the author claims to have fish with wings like a bat, and a "Tau" fish (google translate).Martin451 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin: I think you are misjudging de Rochefort. In my searches, I found that he is often cited by modern herpetologists. Apparently, he was quite a respected naturalist and is the first source for the descriptions of many species in the Caribbean. The quality of his work is no worse than that of other authors of the 17th century. As it happens, the examples you chose are real: The flying fish is well known, and the "sheep-headed fish" is a poor depiction of a narwhal (the first one is perhaps a swordfish). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 13:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Summarizing for clarity)
The problem is that de Rochefort describes at least three completely distinct species of lizard that partially correspond to Wikipedia's squeakinge Lisard (which I shall call the sqwiki-lisard, for convenience):
The five-foot lizards, clearly called iguanas by de Rochefort, who describes them in Article II of Chapter 13 (pp. 144–146), and depicted as the first image on page 151.
The sqwiki-lisard is described as such: "The iguana was reportedly 5 feet long, 1 foot "thick". The scales were a mix of black, green, and gold, and their mouth was full of sharp teeth and a thick tongue.""Most of the "lisards" were very unafraid of humans and were easily killed, eventually causing their extinction, though it took three shots to kill one. The Caribs way of hunting them was to stick sharp sticks up the animal's nose. The meat from the iguana was said to be "luscious", but should not be eaten often because it was so rich." This matches de Rochefort's iguana exactly.
The sqwiki-lisard, however, is "an extinct species of iguana that was found on the island of Nevis"; de Rochefort mentions nowhere that "his" iguana is to be found on Nevis specifically, and so there is no reason to say that de Rochefort's iguana is extinct.
The fish-like reptile, called brochet de terre (meaning "land pike"), described by de Rochefort in Article VII of the same chapter (pp. 149–150) and depicted in the last images on p. 151.
Of the sqwiki-lisard it is said: "Apparently, the lizard resembled a fish, and therefore was also dubbed Land Pike. Caesar Rochefort, who also made engravings of these strange creatures in 1649, stated that they move on land in a manner similar to snakes, but do have four, very weak, legs." This corresponds almost exactly to de Rochefort's brochet de terre, except that de Rochefort clearly did not consider the four-legged fish to be lizard like—see his comment in the last paragraph of his description of iguanas on page 146. Also, the appellation "Squeakinge Lisard" (minus the lizard) corresponds to the brochet de terre only, which is said by de Rochefort to be very noisy. The measurement given on other websites, "15 inches", is also taken from the brochet de terre.
The frightening mabouja
Apparently identical with Mabuya mabouya—identified by lizard experts as de Rocheforts brochet de terre!
I hope this summary helps someone, because my previous comments are very confusing, even to myself.
Delete: No, this isn't a hoax - but it is a chimera. The article confuses at least two different species, combines them into an extinct lizard of Nevis, while there is no evidence that they are extinct and were ever found on Nevis, and has a ridiculous and useless 17th-century title. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 13:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - questionable notability (from what I can tell, only one source?), chimera, inaccurate information, probably intended as a hoax. Ansh666 03:23, 30 April 2013 (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 awards are presented by SwanCon, a convention in Australia. In doing a WP:BEFORE search I could not find any reputable sources such as news publications that report on the awards (mostly personal blogs for web search) which leads me to believe it's a non-notable award. Notability is not inherent from the convention. Mkdwtalk 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did some research on the internet concerning this award. What I found were a few sites that listed various awards presented, including the Tin Duck Award. Two showed some promise of providing notability: the Science Fiction Awards Watch website and the Goodreads website. The Goodreads website said the book More Scary Kisses by Liz Grzyb won the Tin Duck Award. I'm still not convinced this award is notable enough, but am will to vote to keep it when someone finds compelling evidence thru this AfD discussion. I should mention the only reference in the Tin Duck Award article is a dead link. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think for me this is a case of inherent notability. Because SwanCon or the West Australian Science Fiction Foundation (which might not be a notable organization either) are responsible for the awards, does not necessarily make them notable. Perhaps a redirect at best considering the state of the article. As you also point out, all the mentions are trivial because they're about the recipients and not about the awards themselves. Mkdwtalk 21:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to SwanCon. It appears to have just a number of trivial mentions here and there and it does not deserve a separate topic, but it is worthy of mention there. Cavarrone (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SwanCon per WP:ATD as a non-notable topic with an identified parent article. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominator I'd support a merge. Mkdwtalk 01:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SwanCon. However, we also need to beef up the references for SwanCon. I will try to get that accomplished later today. As the SwanCon article now stands, the references there all point back to something not independent of SwanCon. Such independent references do exist. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2013 (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 delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (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.
no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Only sources are either primary, directory entries or not reliable (last.fm). noq (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I own more than 50 albums of Hermes Records. Almost all of Hermes albums are available on Itunes too, while it's albums are published and distributed internationally it is the most famous record label company in Iran. In my opinion it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologue editor (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added several references to articles published in the UK press (Guardian and Independent). AllyD (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the multiple press articles in the UK alone (Guardian, Independent, The Wire, now referenced into the article) meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the reasons above the company meets the notability requirements Kabirat (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This article already have independent and reliable references covering it, specially articles in The Independent and Observer. These are more than enough for satisfying notability requirements.Achaemenes (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (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. MBisanztalk 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and no assertion of any significant notability. No references at all . Fails WP:CORP. VelellaVelella Talk 08:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not an easy name to search for any relevant sources, and I haven't found any on a first couple of searches, but it may have been better to start with maintenance tags to encourage the (new user) article creator to add any available references rather than go straight to AfD? AllyD (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reply - I did exactly as you have done and looked for refs and found none. If despite the best efforts of a new editor, the topic is unequivocally not-notable, dragging out the process over several weeks doesn't actually help anybody or Wikipedia. VelellaVelella Talk 20:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added a couple of references which establish existence, but they fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2013 (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.
Withdrawn by nominator due to pre-existing AfD. (An editor had removed an AfD tag from the article's page.) Deadbeef (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2013 (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 delete. Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an advertisement for the subject, and some text was also copy-pasted from the artist's website. DjGiovanni (talk·contribs) also contributed to this article and it's highly likely there is a conflict of interest. Page may fail WP:N. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, IP added this message. I reverted the edit because they had blanked the page. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Can't be speedied under G12 as it does appear that the subject themselves is the one who copy-pasted the content, but it is a hugely promotional article article about someone who fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, as such I've tagged it under G11. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 09:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, if the content was already published it still could fall under G12 even if c/p by the author. Unless we have evidence that they are the owner of the copyright, and that means something more than just an assertion on a talk page, it would fail WP:COPYVIO. Anyway, promo and fail at WP:NMUSIC. Peridon (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2013 (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) 07:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found zero third party sources. A quick google search does give the website but also a company, by the same name, that makes crystalline materials. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Has no significant coverage, one reliable source (which is a first party), no proper third part sources (except a few forums), and fails "Independent of the subject". Note: This was csd for promotion before but I don't think it is justified so I'm taking it to afd now. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Gillyweed (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Thank you for at least hearing this out. Please allow say no more than 24-48 hrs for a supporting case to be made, as I need to sort of read over some of the policies and guidelines you guys might be more familiar with. Anyway I did find this to start at Third-party sources: "An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance." I need to verify that this subjects apparent 'insularity' if you can call it that (ie the lack of immediately available/googlable sources to cut an paste) does not diminish notability if notability can be established on other grounds. It just means the article might require more work to fully adhere to policy. I just think a day or two to sort of legitimately come up with that notability is fair considering A) the theory system is highly developed, B) my familiarity with subject while remaining neutral/unbiased would allow timely preparation of the article, and ultimately I feel if the subject is found to be notable, and the article can be well-sourced, neutrally prepared and not unambiguously promotional, it will serve the users and the Wikipedia community well to include the presence of this subject. Right now the approach I am taking to verifying notability is that Quantonics seems a prime, leading, major etc. if not *only* or *first* (how does Wikipedia treat those?) example of a certain type of theoretical construct or belief system- ie it creates its own genre (as we all know happens all the time in music when new instruments or technologies are incorporated into pre-existing forms). In notability guidelines it says just because it is barely known, not famous, or not popular doesn't make it unnotable. And, it is likely on first impression as I have familiarity with the subject, for example the introduction page that is linked, I am familiar with the terms etc. So, might Quantonics be notable as the leading or dominant example of that class of 'belief systems' or 'thought systems', whatever it might be called, say 'post-quantum' post-binary' theory? Not to mention honestly in my informed opinion, it uniquely fuses two modes of ideational advancement: technical scientific rigidity and creative artistic, aesthetic expression. Two things that usually don't fuse almost like when Aerosmith and Run-DMC got together in a way. It's too strange to treat as one or the other, so the baby goes out with the water? Don't delete. Perhaps his type of human endeavor is a bleeding-edge category of human endeavor entirely, called "Creative Logic" or something? Which could indeed be a ubiquitous area of research in 100 years making everything before it obsolete. If you know Quantonics, it itself supports this position. I only intend to be contentious in a constructive way about this but I do have opinions as evidenced by this lengthy comment. But yeah lack of third party is tough here. I don't know that it justifies restriction of this subject. Thanks again. --Phaedrx (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, deletion deletion discussions go on until a consensus of keep or delete is reached. If the discussion goes on long enough (usually a 1-2 weeks) and the closing admin feels there's no consensus for keep or delete the discussion will close and at no consensus. Back to your points, you feeling this is notable doesn't make it notable. Wikipedia has rule on Wikipedia:No Original Research. Only if third party sources deem the subject to be notable then wikipedia will have an article on it. However, you are right that not finding google sources doesn't mean there's not a lack of sources, but the article needs to have third party sources or it won't survive an afd. It can be a textbook, newspaper, journal paper, etc. Google if very good and finding journals and textbooks (at least if there's a pdf version). These all come up empty. Lastly, popular and notable are too different things. Popular refers to the general public knows of it. That does not need to be the case. They are many articles (mostly scientific articles) that achieve notability because there is journal articles on it. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
first of all this hasn't been brought up but I wanted to say I looked at Profringe, and Quantonics is probably not fringe at all, but rather what is in Wiki guidelines as "an alternative theoretical formulation", since Renselle is indeed tweaking the frontier, addressing mainstream theories throughout his own, and attempting to explain or dealing with strong puzzling evidence, i.e. observable quantum-physical manifestations: "To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality." and again from the guidelines:"..4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are *not* (my emphasis) pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, *will usually be rapidly accepted*. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics." I never stated my own opinion about this subject's notability. With all due respect I think you skipped over the word 'if' up there in my last comment because if you take out the if it looks like I'm saying how great I think the theory is. No. That is not important, I know. I know all of us together will figure this out either way. I meant that I am looking into it and "my feeling is, that *if* it is found to be notable (i.e. by all of us) then..." etc. That's what I meant. But remember if the support is a tiny minority, "Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable." Notability would unquestionably be established if one single third-party treats the subject in-depth on a website- reviews, summarizes and criticizes it, and then citing that gives you a third-party right there. So I might actually do that fairly, and so make myself a source, but I don't think that's entirely the best way either. Here is the best position, again, I feel: The guy is operating in a totally different, brand new mode and is the only or leading proponent or example of that new 'Rensellian' mode or style of theoretical formulation; (I am not suggesting my naming of said mode here be adopted) He is blending two previous genres if you will, the advancement of scientific knowledge through an in-depth well-developed system of expression uniquely created to address the thousand questions quantum physicists have about the things they see in labs, like recently they made the temperature go below absolute zero. People like Renselle simply develop belief/thought systems like Quantonics precisely as an alternative to other ones that are ever falling short. Newton bumped Copernicus, Einstein him, Bohr and Bohm all of the previously mentioned etc. etc. Renselle is in the quantonic state of 'maybe it will cause a Kuhnian Scientific Revolution or paradigm shift, maybe not. We cannot tell yet. Consider if some cavemen saw gold or a group of explorers physically saw the fountain of youth in front of them and dismissed its notability out of confusion of what it was they were seeing. Renselle's Quantonics has not been rejected because it hasn't ever even been considered. The guy just posted it; consider us Wikipedians the cavemen or explorers, with Doug's theory being the 'gold' or 'fountain of youth' in the scenario. --phaedrx (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little science on this website, it seems to be a smokescreen of silly words by someone who does not understand quantum mechanics in attempt to impress others who don't understand the subject. Einstein did not "bump" Newton, he built upon Newton's work, in the same way as Newton built upon the work of Copernicus, this is just an attempt to throw the lot out the window. wrt "the recently temperature go below absolute zero.", you cannot make temperatures go below absolute zero, there exist negative temperatures, but that is a scientific construct, not below absolute zero. And "recently", well these first postulated in the 1950's are seen experimentally at least 20 years ago.Martin451 (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be think that the problem with this article is to do with the size of minority that supports the idea. That's not how it works. It makes absolutely no difference how many people support the idea, what matters is that the idea itself is known and recognised. Notability can be demonstrated only by reliable sources discussing it (regardless of whether they support it or not). There is no evidence that any do, and no amount of quibbling over how it should be defined, and what it is, will change that basic failure. --Escape Orbit(Talk) 20:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer waiting a couple of years or more until at least this theory has been proved and accepted under consensus by a number of reliable sources aside from the self-published ones. hmssolent\You rang?ship's log 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete One persons pet theory does not a wikipedia article make, he claims to have "invalidated general relativity", he seems to treat this subject as a religion, and is inventing his own language. This is nothing more than a fringe theory without third party sources to establish notability.Martin451 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fringe babble with no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I can't really see what this has to do with quantum mechanics - or much else either. (Possibly Theosophy, with which it appears to share a fondness for esoteric incomprehensibility...) However, we do have articles on things that don't comply with orthodox science (homeopathy, for one...). Those are widely documented. Other than on its own site and spin-offs and publicity pushes, this doesn't seem to be. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant promotional of the author's belief system; I have read a bit of his website, but it all reads like meaningless, stream-of-consciousness babble (not even scientific-sounding). If an article starts with "Quantonics is an advanced and highly developed thought system", it starts wrong. Strong (possibly speedy) delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the individual(s) defending the article are familiar with WP:N. I did find one 3rd party refs, though, which is the only way to show notability (1 primary source does not an article make). [16]. Unfortunately, not enough to warrant an article on WP. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a 404... Peridon (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link. apparently, I was triggering some wierd macro. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For real fixed it this time. Seriously, that was wierd. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for further attention when I come off these anti-inflamatories and can laugh safely... Peridon (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual's pet theory on their own website. Not notable, at all. --Escape Orbit(Talk) 19:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2nd/final reiteration of my Keep vote. Thanks guys. Yes, I obviously feel Quantonics is Wikiworthy and I am perfectly in the right to say so. And I remain anti-snowball and pro-Wikipedia, but not one person so far has actually addressed my main or follow up points post-speedy. I actually did carefully review WP:N and other guidelines for hours over days, despite above insinuation. I came to these 2 conclusions: All I was saying, was
a) A serious neutral analysis of the merits of Quantonics on my own independent site would have to, as currently worded in the guidelines, generate the required notability. And this neutral treatment would neither flippantly declare its 'petness' by writ without any supporting statements; nor gush that this man is infallible and his work sacred (which is what the grotesque caricature of the 'don't' position apparently tends to in the extreme); rather somewhere in between, somewhere *neutral* was my honest intent here. And lastly, I wasn't looking to trifle with an online resource obviously valuable to millions worldwide so, b) I thought it better to defer to another perhaps less fishy way to 'get it in' namely that this is a Prime or Only Example of A New Mode or Style of ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL FORMULATION (taken right from the guidelines!) Someone care to differ? Please.
I still hold to the following logic: if someone writes and records a song in their house, that's not enough. fine. And if that record (which could be amazing or it could be terrible) if it's only found within a first-party webpage, still short. Of course, BUT, if the record is some kind of new thing, say reggae-metal, then consider the following: He has potentially invented a new style/mode of addressing the absolute forefrontier of quantumness mainstream can only partly explain and control. Or, easier to concur with still, that if he's doing this type of activity, he belongs in an article expounding on 'eccentrics novelly complementing mainstream science's shortcomings with a creative alternative approach'. BTW for the below absolute zero thing, please see for example the article http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/01/temperature-below-absolute-zero. Reliable, verifiable etc. "Physicists at the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless *has negative Kelvin values*." And to me Jan '13 is indeed quite recent. Look, this is getting surreal and bizarre. If you want to pick apart the argument I am making please by all means do so. You all seem to need so badly to uphold the integrity of this work (WP) out of principle or ideology or maybe even automatonic habit by this point for some WP vets sadly to say. My vote was cast, I was seriously looking to enhance incrementally the value of WP with a neutral point of entry for seekers who probably could determine *for themselves* (and not be told by the likes of us) that, hey, Quantonics is crap. You all are simply going to Doug's site, evaluating and rejecting the subject's substance and not addressing its WP-defined notability, its actual real-world notability (two diff. things) which led me to it personally, and will continue to lead other seekers too. Nor does anyone's above 'Delete' really get into any other standard in the official WP. guidelines. Thanks. --phaedrx (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) ps - Mr. Rosoft, please google 'advanced definiton' and see #2 'New and not yet generally accepted.' It is indeed advanced then, precisely by the resistance here and its universal disregard. And as to quantify its developed-ness as 'highly' so, I was simply referring to how much time and effort was obviously and evidently spent on devleoping so much content even if it is crap as you say. Otherwise I would have said 'well'-developed. But that was me trying to be neutral. So take the safe route, read 1% of the site for 5 minutes, find yourself confused as I first did, but stop there and come back here and dismiss it however you like. But is there not one other single brave soul willing to surmise at all as to how Quantonics might possibly be deemed a Wikiworthy page.. even if you ARE against? Wow that's telling. Reveals latent flaws in the process. Sorry but true. Thanks again to all to take their time and put their best efforts in on this subject which I personally have always gained Relevant ('what does Quantonics have to do with anything') Positive Awareness ('Quantonics is crap') of my surroundings from that site unlike others, whenever I went there. Knock yourselves out guys it's been real.[reply]
For notability to be achieved, Wikipedia needs multiple third party reliable sources e.g. mention by press or scientific journals. One website plus one independent review does not count. A large following on the internet would be notable if covered by independent reviews of that following. The Quantonics website does not achieve that notability no matter whether it is "crap" or not. Have you every watched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?, the bit at the end where he goes into the room and there are hundreds of cups containing poison, and one is the Holy Grail, well that is what fringe theories are except there are many many thousands of bad cups for every good cup, and wikipedia is not designed for all this dross.
Re: negative temperatures see publications like Olli et al[3] like I said, this was published 19 years ago in a scientific journal, not this year. From the article you cite above “Yet the gas is not colder than zero kelvin, but hotter,”, also like I said, the temperatures don't go below absolute zero, they are negative as a scientific way to describe them. It seems that the author of Quantonics is just grabbing stuff from the popular press without researching or understanding the actual subject.
From another part of the website "In order to say and believe that Bentov must assume that his pendulum's reference frame is motionless. Physicists would say Bentov's pendulum's reference frame has "zero momentum." But does it? Really? No! On Earth, his reference frame is moving around Earth's axis at a maximum of 500 meters per second at Earth's equator. Too, Earth moves around its solar orbit at about 30 kilometers per second!"
The author displays a complete lack of understanding of the concepts surrounding relativity, yet at another point of his website claims to have invalidation both special relativity and general relativity. He does not provide any mathematical/scientific proof of this, just declares that he knows better. How can you invalidate something that you clearly do not understand? This whole website is just whishy washy words to cover up a fraud who is clueless on physics, the subject he is claiming to know about. Martin451 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main question we must address is not "Is this a valid theory" - if this was a major criterion, then homeopathy and Flat Earthism would be out of the window. What we need to know is, is it notable? They are notable despite being a load of cobblers. If theories had to be proved, all religions would be out too. This theory does not appear to be covered in the depth we require anywhere except on the home site. That cannot count for notability. I could in an hour or so set up a site for Fragantism. a new religion and theory of why strawberries are the key to the universe. I could get pages on Facebook and MySpace, and link to it on 4chan and the Volvo owners' forum. But it would count here as (at best) Original Research WP:OR, or (more likely) be deleted straight off as a blatant hoax. Your theory is not discussed in depth at any reliable independent source, as mine wouldn't be. See what I'm getting at? The comments here about the theory itself are explanations of WHY we can't find anything (and presumably you can't, either...). It's the lack of anything that's the reason for the article being at AfD. Wikipedia does not cover new research - not until it's been dealt with reliably and independently elsewhere. Someone may invent a machine for making bread out of stones. Until Science or at least Modern Grocer has reviewed it, we ignore it. Magazines like Science have peer review before publishing. We don't - this is why we insist that things are already reviewed independently elsewhere first. Peridon (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one very interesting reliable third-party source on the Quantonics website, surprisingly enough. Dr. Scott C. Smith, a Professor at LaSalle University, has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and does research on Computational Astrophysics and Relativity [4][5]. He wrote to Quantonics, complaining that one of his letters had been republished without permission. Dr. Smith refers to Quantonics as "deconstructionist nonsense." He also stated about creator Doug Renselle, "I feel he has failed to truly grasp the basic concepts of quantum mechanics." [6]. This confirms my impression that Quantonics is a personal theory with neither notability nor credibility, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. HillbillyGoat (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant policy is WP:No original research, and the key sentence in that is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let's close this out huh, well at least I was in the right, as far as trying to start a new page, and stating all that above which was how I honestly felt. Didn't mean to snowball or tie up your guys' resources on a bogus article or anything. At least it was practice for me. Of course I respect the delete decision as I have said since joining Wikipedia here. I respect this great encyclopedia I read it all the time. Anyway, again, I am very new here so am I supposed to AFD this? -Phaedrx (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This IS AfD... You can strike through your Keep (put <s> at the start of the word and </s> after it. Then you can can request deletion as author. Otherwise, things last a week from the start. If you do make the request, an uninvolved admin will probably delete sooner per WP:SNOW and per your request. If you do this, I'll contact one to make a quick close. If you want to let it run on, that's OK. Someone might come up with references... When making your next article, get the references in hand first, and write round them. Then, you can fill in other bits. It may be cheating, but it works. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your setting up was quite good - do try another subject (using my tip above, and making sure of notability first, of course). We do need people who can create content. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fast learnin to shut my mouth more because I have to revalidate everything unclear which includes the stuff you didn't intend. I guess that's every single romantic comedy crisis point ever. Well, phaedrx's quantonics is like edselian but that's my exaggerating it now. It's just a non-encyclopedic virtually unsourceable subject at the moment. I feel better. Thanks to all, as far as the shut my mouth comment I just meant by the way when I was accidentally sockpuppeting my airtight alibi is this: I was in the habit of customizing the appearance of my desktop when I was using this ref as a invaluable tool at work. But never once in my wildest dreams or in any of the more boring ones actually did I ever think when I signed into the Wikipedia I would be doing anything special like editing. I consider this activity a special thing by the way making Wikipedia happen is a real thing, anyway, when I started 'socking' or whatever I was used to making new accounts variations of my name etc, but eventually I just made up new ones quick so I could get in and do what I neede to do in the interest of time at my job. So I forgot all this when I was being attacked by multiple people about multiple things that spun this newbs head. So, the delay ended when I just realized now that I was doing that, signing in to make the screen look how I wanted. Does that also show up in the history?? Does my browsing pages publically affect or effect shanges in my standing in the wikipedia community I have a zillion questions. --Phaedrx (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a load of uncited stuff about an obscure guy's thoughts. No evidence is presented in the article for anything. The version I saw had quite a bit of purple prose (which I have deleted). Apparently the guy used words and symbols - guess what - so does everyone. If the president of the country north of Mexico was coming out with this stuff, it would merit an article - not because it has any validity, but because of who was coming out with it. I have no idea whether the Doug Renselle mentioned in the article is the same guy that Google says is a computer hacker. If he is the same person, it is not much of a claim to notability.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know now that, as a contributor here, I am certainly at my leisure to, on my own time, draft up a new article on this same subject should I choose, and properly post it up here for discussion etc. legitimately. That page should it ever happen would definitely have a better chance of surviving AfD than this one. My lack of desire to snowball on this version of a Quantonics entry in the Wikipedia has already been made known a long time ago (see above). This Quantonics page may look like a freshly entered AfD no-brainer to some wiki-vets, but to me as a not-so-newb-anymore newb, it feels like ancient history. Meaning I didn't even know how to do a cite web ref. from memory etc. yet, every time I wanted to cite I had to look up guidelines and templates, etc. hence its fatal uncited-ness. That, and there are like no google hits as was mentioned by Toddy. So, while I still hold the opinion that the subject as presented is indefensible, I also think if it would be done right that there could one day be an article on Quantonics. Now that I know more about Wikipedia (I made this Quantonics page after only a few days of reading the guidelines and before I even knew there was a wikipedia-en-help connect thingy) right now there are other ways I feel are more important for me to contribute here with the time effort and ability I do have than this admittedly obscure knowledge or thought-system. --Phaedrx (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC) ps at Toddy's request I have changed all instances of the other IP username I accidentally used (see user:Yngvadottir who first pointed this out to me) to the current username. That IP has been listed on the phaedrx user page since Yngvadottir told me about the socking thing. Thanks[reply]
^Lounasmaa, Olli (February 1994). "Negative nanokelvin temperatures in the nuclear spin systems of silver and rhodium metals". Physica B: Condensed Matter. 194–196: 291-292. doi:10.1016/0921-4526(94)90475-8.
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 nomination withdrawn. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion for the following reasons.
1) It does not contain references where its subject -- "axiom of global choice" -- is described: the texbooks by Kelley and by Jech given as references don't contain the term "axiom of global choice" at all.
2) I did not succeed independently in finding textbooks or papers where this term -- "axiom of global choice" -- is explained.
3) At the talk page of this article I suggested the authors to correct the references, but I did not receive a reasonable answer.
4) 7 months ago I initiated a trial at one of the websites for mathematicians, MathOverflow, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/107650/axiom-of-global-choice, about the content of this article in Wikipedia. My complaint was that the subject of the article resembles too much a hoax. Again, no reasonable answer followed.
I suppose this is enough for considering the necessity of deleting this article (and mentionings of the term "global choice" everywhere in Wikipedia). I don't exclude that the authors could rewrite this text in such a way that the idea of "global choice" could be endowed with some mathematical sense, but it's clear for me that something must be done with this.
I invite all authors (and readers) to share their opinion.
Eozhik (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eozhik has misunderstood what Kelley (not Kelly!) says. I quote from p.273, "The following is a strong form of Zermelo's postulate or the axiom of choice. IX Axiom of choice. There is a choice function whose domain is " This is manifestly a statement of the axiom of global choice. - 振霖T 09:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, "Kelley", I am sorry. I have corrected this. So you say, that Kelley's formulation is exactly what is called the "axiom of global choice"? Then why in the Wikipedia article it is called the "weak" form of the axiom of global choice? Eozhik (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Kelley's axiom is the second version: "V \ { ∅ } has a choice function (where V is the class of all sets; see Von Neumann universe)." - 振霖T 11:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If everything is so simple, why do people speak about the Grothendieck Universe when trying to explain this? Eozhik (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the references. In Fraenkel-Bar-Hillel-Levy I indeed found the axiom of global choice. But note that in MathOverflow they did not give this reference. Eozhik (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, Eozhik appears to be confusing the axiom of global choice with the ordinary axiom of choice. It should not be surprising that some authors use "axiom of choice" to refer to what we call the global axiom of choice, but that does not make them the same thing. I put in the expression "weak form" to distinguish one version of the axiom of global choice from an apparently (but not actually) stronger version which has subsequently been removed from the article. Even what I called the weak form is stronger (really) than the ordinary axiom of choice. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the present text the word "weak" confuses the reader. Because on reading this one gets an impression that what you call the "axiom of global choice" is actually stronger than what you call its "weak" form. Besides this, what is more important, there must be a reference to a source where this term "global choice" had been originally introduced, or at least described. There are no such references in the present version. Salix gave now a reference to the book by Fraenkel-Bar-Hillel-Levy, and only after that I got an opportunity to understand what one can have in mind when speaking about "global choice". These mistakes must be corrected. Eozhik (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough textbooks on this, just google books on it and you'll see: [17][18]. The current lack of references, or no answer upon questioning, isn't a strong reason to delete; the article has plenty of room to expand and include future refs, and is not in the way of anything. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among different textbooks there are some (actually, I now know only one, I have just learned about it due to Salix), where this term - "axiom of global choice" -- is explained, and there are others (in my impression, they form a majority), without this explanation. The mistake of the authors was that they chose wrong ones. Eozhik (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is clear that the Axiom of Global Choice exists as a notable mathematical topic (try searching on ZMATH for example). It is equally clear that this article fails to explain it adequately and that the sources cited fail to support the article. Deltahedron (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The topic is clearly notable and not a hoax. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If so, would you like to correct the mistakes? Eozhik (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOFIXIT. If you see mistakes, you should correct them. If you don't know how to fix them, you should ask on the discussion page of the article. Nominating an article for deletion is not an acceptable way to ask someone to fix the mistakes in an article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within ZFC, the global choice may be added in the form of the so-called Hilbert's global choice operator (used by Bourbaki, for example), giving ZGC. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I can't confirm the name. It's form E (attributed to Kurt Gödel in 1940) or CAC 1 in
Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice, II by H. Rubin and J. E. Rubin, Elsevier, 1985, ISBN0-444-87708-8. One could argue that the first named form in a section of a reliable reference book is sufficiently notable. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now the mistakes are corrected, so I have no further objections against the present text. I think only that it would be desireble to write simply that "usual choice" is for sets of sets, while "global choice" for classes of sets -- that would clarify everything from the very beginning. Anyway, I suppose I must do something to stop this discussion on the ground that the article took now an acceptable form. What should I do for this? Eozhik (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2013 (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) 06:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL delete - there's still a chance for the NBA to discontinue the All-Star Games at this time, unless sources may confirm that it will go a head anyway. hmssolent\You rang?ship's log 02:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. What if there is a season lockout and no game gets played? I think this is the case of an editor wanting to be "the editor who made the 2015 NBA All-Star Game article." Jrcla2 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. When the NBA officially names a date and a venue, at that point it would be a concrete event on the horizon and appropriate to start an article. This is just a rumor at this point. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. epzik8 14:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. We get lots of these articles, in a wide variety of sports. It might be a nice idea to write a policy somewhere that addressed the problem. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 16:26, 22 April 2013 (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.
Keep Definitely a notable topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't mean we have to delete dictionary-type articles. Per WP:BEFORE, we're supposed to exhaust all the non-deletion alternatives before bringing something to AfD, and if there is a non-deletion alternative, then we're supposed to use that instead. But, where something's a dictionary entry, there's always an alternative. We can put in a soft redirect to Wikipedia's sister-project Wiktionary. Wiktionary is the dictionary that Wikipedia isn't, if you see what I mean.
It follows that it's almost never appropriate to AfD dictionary-style entries. The way to deal with unencyclopaedic dictionary content is to replace all the text on the page with {{Wi}}, unless there's no Wiktionary entry (rare) in which case use {{dictdef}}.
My position is that Cyphonism should not be a redlink for that reason.—S MarshallT/C 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But in reality, AfD's are often used to generate consensus on what to do with an article, with the answer sometimes being neither keep nor delete. There's not really any other forum to bring this up, and I think just replacing the entire article with {{wi}} without consensus would likely be taken badly, especially by the creator and principal maintainers. ❤ YutsiTalk/Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the article, it looks expandable. There are presumably sources out there that thee older encyclopedias are depending on that do discuss it. (It might conceivably be a case of copying errors from each other, but showing that would need some investigation. The presumption is that we cover whatever standard general encyclopedias cover -- old or new. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Self-promoting autobiography whose subject fails the general notability guideline. Cited sources are either self-published (blogs, press releases) or don't mention the subject. Search turned up no reliable third-party sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(do not delete) I am the author of this article. I work for NRGLab, a green-energy company Ana Shell is partnered with. In no way does this article serve as a promotion for NRGLab or our products. It does, however, highlight the stellar career of Ana Shell, whose work spans a wide range of causes. All sources are credible and available at the bottom of the page. -- Dm07891p (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is largely trivial with very few GHits pertaining to the subject itself. hmssolent\You rang?ship's log 02:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Iselilja (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2013 (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.
Almost class example of WP:HAMMER, over 50% of the album is sourced through Twitter, and the only concrete thing we know is nelly told rap-up he was working on an album called M.O. for 2012. Not reliably sourced and certainly not notable per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 01:06, 13 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) 02:33, 20 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 27 September 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.
Delete; I found no RS's. – Ypnypn (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MIPS architecture. One can verify that the term MIPSel exists, but there are few sources beyond a definition. While there are not enough in-depth reliable sources to support saving this article, it is a term that users could search on. So following WP:PRESERVE, I suggest converting this to a redirect to MIPS architecture and adding the definition to the section MIPS architecture#CPU family where the bi-endian nature of the processor family is mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2013 (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. There have been good arguments that the subject does not pass does not qualify for deletion under WP:BLP1E, particularly S Marshall's argument that the CNN interview the subject gave meant that he no longer counts as a low-profile individual. So, this is a keep, because there are sufficient sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG, and because bullet point two from BLP1E doesn't apply. However, I'm closing this with no prejudice against the article being renamed/refactored into an article about the events that led up to the outing, as I do not see a strong consensus for or against that action in this discussion. That will need to be discussed further on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 06:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an easy WP:BLP1E; reliable sources cover this person only in the context of a single event. This person otherwise remains a low-profile individual, and has not received considerable media coverage recently. Searching for "Michael Brutsch" on Google News, I see one relevant result. It is from a month ago, and that refers back to his outing as the "biggest troll on the web." As far as I know he has not done anything notable since then.
The previous AFD ended in "no consensus" and an admin recommended "reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed." Time has passed and this person does not have significant lasting notability beyond the media attention he receieved in October.
To pull from a quote the previous AFD nomination, "BLP1E revolves around 1) 'is the subject for only known for one thing?", 2) "absent this one thing would this person be unknown?", and 3) "going forward, is the subject likely to remain low-profile?'"
I'd say yes to all three.
Another still-relevant segment from the original AFD: "Yes, people caught up in one-event cases will give interviews in the immediate aftermath, but that's really not enough to address this criteria. You would need to see a sustained campaign of spotlight-chasing that keeps the person in the headlines. An example of that would be Sandra Fluke, who has now passed the threshold of notability beyond the initial one-event Rush Limbaugh dust-up. This guy isn't that, and since his livelihood has essentially been destroyed by publicity, I'd say he is unlikely to chase it anytime soon, if ever. This case is more like the girl who was spanked by her father; a news frenzy, then gone."
The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. The main [reddit] article already has a paragraph on the events described in this article under "Controversial Subreddits", so it doesn't make sense to give the person their own article as well. Hardly anything on Wikipedia links to the "Michael Brutsch" page, to boot.
Addendum In response to comments made in the long discussion below, I am adding the following piece of information to my original statement:
A search of 4,600 news sources via newslibrary.com turns up nothing for "violentacrez" between 1900 and September 2012 beyond a CNN piece where he was given a trivial mention (his name was mentioned in passing, but he was not discussed).
In October 2012 (the time period of the "outing" incident) there are many articles which refer to "violentacrez."
He has kept a low profile since then and is not likely to become involved in a second notable event. Hence, he received significant coverage from reputable sources centering around one event (his "unmasking"), did not receive significant coverage before then and is not likely to receive significant coverage in the future.
He is notable for one event, and his page should be merged with a page about his "unmasking," merged with the appropriate subsection on reddit or deleted.
Keep Obviously, this is not a BLP1E case as the individual has been covered independently in the context of three separate events from 2011 to 2012 as the sources in the article and my argument in the previous AfD showed. The outing is just the event that got the most attention. In addition, he has been discussed months after the event occurred, often in contexts that pay more attention to his general activities on Reddit than his actual outing. Here is some of the in-depth coverage that occurred months after the fact.
It is certainly true that the outing is often mentioned, but he is typically not discussed solely in the context of the outing. Not even his outing was discussed solely in that context. Rather, he is most known for his outing so that is mentioned first and the source then devotes in-depth discussion to him in a different context. He certainly pursued a high profile on Reddit for some time before his outing (he even created a sub-reddit about himself) and the in-depth interview he did with CNN was hardly some on-the-spot action by the press.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All four of those articles are referring to this person in to context of the same "Outing" event from October and/or the unsavory elements of the site, which are already covered under the main reddit article. Two of the four articles you link to don't even refer to his real name. Brutsch hasn't done anything public in months as far as I know, and as such he remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Breadblade (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see, when you say "and/or" with what follows being something other than the event and yet still very noteworthy, then you have already proven that BLP1E does not apply. The outing is often going to be mentioned whenever he is mentioned because it is a significant part of his notability, but it does not mean those mentions are all in the context of the event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Michael Brutsch receive significant media attention before October 2012? No. If the media has to add in that he was the subject of Chen's article for the audience to have any idea of who he is, he's probably only notable in the context of that event. Type "violentacrez" and "micheal brutsch" into google trends. You'll see the graph hover near zero before October 2012, peak sharply in October 2012, and fall off sharply again in 2013. In fact, let's look at the Wikipedia article's description of notable things he's done before October 2012:
Generic background information
Brutsch finds reddit.com.
Brutsch makes (awful) subforums on reddit.com.
Brutsch submits popular, but controversial image to reddit, gives interview to a magazine that covers reddit closely, the Daily Dot.
(Note that almost every citation used in the article dated before October 2012 is from the Daily Dot.)
One forum Brutsch creates gets mentioned on CNN segment about the forum. The segment is about the forum, but not Brutsch. (Brutsch's username is read once from a list of moderators, but beyond that no reference is made to him or his role on the site.) The forum is closed.
The Daily Dot, the only source that seems to be covering Brutsch at this point, gives Brutsch an award.
Brutsch is quoted in a blip about reddit blocking domains.
Let's look at the Wikipedia article's description of notable things he's done after October 2012:
Nothing
Let's face it. He was the flavor of the month in October 2012, but now he's fading sharply back into obscurity.
Whether he does anything in the future is not really pertinent. He has played a pivotal role in multiple events and been covered by multiple reliable sources in each case, including one major event that is leading to him being covered in multiple different contexts months later, not just the outing. I would note that not all recent coverage of him mentions the outing, but yours is not really a valid point. He is notable for the outing, but also for other reasons. A source noting one thing he is notable for and then talking about him in-depth with regards to something else entirely indicates that he is a subject of noteworthy interest for reliable sources due to reasons other than his association with one event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of BLP1E is to protect innocent bystanders and low-profile individuals from being embarrassed. Brutsch does not, strictly speaking, fit Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual because he was interviewed on CNN and it wasn't an ambush interview—the guy voluntarily sought the publicity. And Brutsch is pretty far from an innocent bystander. The sources show that he's the guy who ran subreddits for sexualised images of children, images of dead children, rape jokes, and so on.
Of course, the children involved weren't naked or actually dead, so he was guilty of low standards, poor judgment and a sick sense of humour rather than doing anything illegal. He's not an innocent bystander, he did this deliberately and he was in it up to his eyeballs for years. However, there's another factor in favour of deletion, which is that the coverage is all in a short burst around October 2012.
Still, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, and BLP1E is not for protecting the blatantly guilty. And the article is tied up with some very topical and up-to-date themes about the boundaries of freedom of speech, privacy, internet anonymity, and the use of people's images without their consent. These are subjects the public would expect an online encyclopaedia to cover.
On balance I'm of the view that this material is well within scope and the guy deserves his Wikipedia article. I'm not minded to protect him. Keep.—S MarshallT/C 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take much to run a subreddit. The content you're referring to was crowdsourced by thousands of reddit users, hence discussion of sexualised images of children, images of dead children, rape jokes and so on probably belongs on the reddit article. In fact, it's already there, along with discussion of Brutsch. Maybe it should be expanded. I would also support a redirect or merge of the Brutsch article into a page about these freedom-of-speech, anonymity and privacy issues you're referring to. I don't care about protecting Brutsch, but if the purpose of this page really were to target the guy (it's not, as far as I know), it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. Fact is, Brutsch hasn't done anything newsworthy in about five months, and he wasn't really well known before then either.
He wasn't widely known, and not by his real name, but he was certainly known outside Reddit before the outing. I mean, I don't have a Reddit account and have barely ever looked at the site, but I knew about him before the outing because of his association with the jailbait subreddit that was subject to some significant news coverage back in 2011. The outing just made him a widely-known figure. We have at least half a dozen reliable sources talking about violentacrez prior to the outing, with The Daily Dot devoting some significant attention to him. Despite what you and Marshall have said, there have been recurring mentions, some significant, in the months since the outing. All of the sources I provided above were from months after the event. Already this is popping up in scholarlyworks.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this significant coverage of Violentacrez in 2011, outside of the Daily Dot (which devotes significant attention to the reddit community's internal workings). Even I've been featured on the Daily Dot. The scholarly article you are referring to talks about Brutsch solely in the context of Gawker's October 2012 article exposing Brutsch's moderation activity, so I'm not sure why that doesn't prove my point further.
He was mentioned on CNN and Gawker at the time, but, more importantly, he created the subreddit that was getting extensive coverage so it was not some trivial role he played in that event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the Gawker article, but I think this is the CNN segment I think that you are referring to, and it might be considered a trivial mention. Anderson reads his username, notes that he doesn't how to pronounce it, and makes no further reference to Brutsch. Breadblade (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This should be so obvious, as the article is about an incident, not a person. The incident is notable, and that's what this article is about. Find a way to harmonize that with the BLP1E policy. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a restructuring and renaming of this article to be about the Gawker exposé and related events instead of a biography of this person. Seems much more appropriate. Breadblade (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'd still need the redirects from Violentacrez and Michael Brutsch because those are the plausible search terms. But if this exercise would achieve consensus and save face all round, then I certainly wouldn't object.—S MarshallT/C 20:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those would be good redirects to put in. Breadblade (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with any rename or refocusing as sources do not just discuss him as someone who was outed and the result will be focusing more on the negative aspects of the individual as that's the only information relevant to the outing. We can have an article on both as each is independently notable, but an article on the event will inevitably mean an article that talks of him only as the "jailbait guy" who got outed, which is not all that this article discusses nor all that it should discuss as it is not all that reliable sources discuss.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current article already focuses pretty strongly on his involvement in places like /r/beatingwomen and /r/jailbait, I'm not sure why a hypothetical restructuring would make him look any worse than he already does. Also I'm not sure what else he's known for beyond being "the jailbait guy who got outed." Beyond the talk of his reddit activities, all the page has is some "career" information sourced from a personal resume hosted on Brutsch's own webpage. Breadblade (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One way it would make him look worse is by removing things that make him look better. His objections to the blacklisting of certain news sites back in July is one thing that would definitely not be included and it is the only noteworthy incident he was involved in where he wasn't the subject of the negative coverage. The extent to which defenses of his Reddit activity could be included would be limited as it is only tangentially relevant to the outing itself. It also would prevent other details about him from being added as they would be of little or no relevance to the outing. An article about the outing would not be about his Reddit activities or him so details that could make him or his Reddit activities look better or just less bad to readers would not be included.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 22:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we should avoid making this change because there aren't enough reliable secondary sources that make this person look good? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Breadblade (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying there are enough sources so there should be a bio because any article on the event would really only allow a negatively-slanted portrayal of him, while a bio would allow for a more balanced portrayal. I don't see a problem with having an article on the event and an article on him, as I said. He is notable for more than just being outed and to have Wikipedia content focus solely on the outing would deprive readers of greater understanding regarding the individual central to the event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the sources are sufficient for a full biography. Most of his "career" segment is sourced from a self-published résumé, except for the information about the job he was fired from in October 2012 due to the Gawker article. I'm not convinced of how pivotal of a role Brutsch played in the blocking of news sites, either. After a quick scan of news articles on that incident I could find no mention of violentacrez, even though the one cited in the Wikipedia page used a brief quote from him. Beyond that, the "violentacrez" segment is almost entirely about his activity on controversial subreddits, and would probably be relevant for page restructured in this way. (Though it would be probably a bit long). Breadblade (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The role he played was in bringing it to attention. Many sources don't reference violentacrez directly, but do reference the r/banneddomains subreddit he created to draw attention to the issue. Sources that were cited in the article are just the ones directly crediting him with bringing the story to light. Just like sources extensively discussing the jailbait subreddit aren't included unless they explicitly mention violentacrez, even though he was the creator and moderator of the subreddit.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't referenced in those articles because few knew or cared who this person was outside of reddit before the events of October 2012. If he really was a well-known or notable figure before then, I doubt that news outlets would forget to put his username on the article, or comment on who is giving this announcement. If reliable sources aren't covering the person except for in the context of a single event, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Breadblade (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying he was a well-known figure or that it would have been appropriate to have an article about him prior to the outing. Sourcing was sparse and he wasn't the direct subject of coverage, just a noteworthy player in the events. However, you are insisting that this is a BLP1E case and that he is only known for being outed. Your argument simply isn't correct. You have three events where reliable sources note he played a major role, two of these events were major and one sort of an average news event, the last being one where he was the primary subject of coverage. There is no BLP2E, never mind a BLP3E, criteria for deleting or merging an article. In addition you have plenty of in-depth coverage of him as an independent subject of interest following the outing. Mind you, it is an incomplete bio. There are plenty of pertinent details about him that could be but have not been included here and that would not really be relevant to an article on the outing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 02:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was involved in three events, but is he notable for all three? I've discussed this above: probably not. The articles about the site-wide domain bans overwhelmingly did not talk about him. He got a trivial mention in a CNN segment (I provided a transcript and summary above), but violentacrez otherwise didn't enter into the discussion. Part of the whole point of the Gawker article is that nobody in the general public paid much attention to violentacrez or his actions on reddit until Adrian Chen put a spotlight on him. After that, it's easy to look back on these events and retroactively say he was prominent and notable, but in reality? He wasn't a big deal unil October 2012. Breadblade (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, he is notable for all three. His involvement in all three events was "worthy of notice", which is what notability means, as several reliable sources did consider his involvement worthy of noting, some in detail. The issue is whether he is so worthy of notice that there should be an article focused on him. With those events prior to the outing he may not have been that worthy of notice. No one can argue that to be the case any more. Reliable sources not only consider him "worthy of notice" because he was outed, but because of his general activity on Reddit and what it indicates about Internet culture. Sources mentioning the outing and then discussing him for entirely differentreasons is indicative of reliable sources considering him worthy of notice for more than just his association with a single event. There are sources that don't actually mention the outing at all, so obviously it is not a matter of people simply being interested because he was some pseudonymous person online that got identified. Given that reliable sources considered him worthy of notice prior to the outing, the continued interest in him as a general subject of interest, not simply as a player in one event, indicates that there should be an article about him and not just the event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you brought up that is supposed to not mention Brutsch's outing at all... quotes him in a hyperlink to his post-outing interview with CNN. The other two articles bring him up in the context of the Gawker article. Breadblade (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Quoting from his CNN interview is not the same as mentioning his outing or covering him in the context of his outing. For fuck's sake, if someone mentions the comments in the Salon source that quotes from his CNN interview are you going to say that source also only covers him in the context of his outing? The word "context" means something very different from what you are using it to say. The Salon source covers him in the context of some issue completely unrelated to his outing. All that said and he is still covered by reliable sources in the context of two other events and his role in those previous events was major. He is known generally for his activities on Reddit, known for being outed, known for the jailbait subreddit specifically, and known for breaking the banned domains story. No BLP1E objection is acceptable here, period.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that his CNN interview was about the outing, I'm not sure how it would be thought of as an independent event. He was not well-known or given non-trivial coverage for his reddit activities before the brief burst of media attention he received in October 2012. Breadblade (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, his CNN interview was not "about the outing", but really about him and his Reddit activities. It was prompted by the outing, but the idea that referencing the CNN interview months later is the same as referencing the outing is stretching it. He also was given non-trivial coverage for his Reddit activities prior to the outing. Reliable sources crediting him for breaking a major story or a source in 2011 naming him the most influential person on Reddit is significant, not trivial.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN interview had everything to do with the outing (which, as the only event Brutsch is objectively notable for, was itself about him and his reddit activities), it followed the initial wave of media attention that followed the Gawker article. Where is this non-trivial coverage prior to October 2012? Also, I'm not sure if a reddit-centric publication calling someone influential on reddit is a solid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. How many other users on that list have (or should have) wikipedia pages? Are they (or should they be) mentioned on the main reddit article? Breadblade (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dot is not a "reddit-centric" publication and I imagine most, if not all, of those other redditors on the list did not also get covered by other reliable sources for playing major roles in multiple events. It is the accumulation of significant mentions in sourcing that matters.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dot releases several articles on minor happenings on reddit each week, and it is relied upon heavily in this article for sources detailing his actions prior to the events of October 2012. If he's recieved significant non-trivial coverage from publications prior to October 2012 I'm not seeing it. Breadblade (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Dot covers all manner of stories regarding the Internet. You can't just hand-wave its non-trivial coverage away by suggesting it is focused mainly on Reddit when it is not. It is relied on heavily because it gives the most in-depth coverage. The other coverage I have noted is not trivial either. A trivial mention of someone on Reddit would be "x redditor commented on the controversy" not "x redditor brought this whole controversy to light in a posting on Reddit", which is what one of the incidences of coverage entailed.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 22:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if "Brutsch made a post on reddit" qualifies as an event notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe for the reddit article on Wikipedia. Breadblade (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Brutsch made a post on Reddit and sparked off a major controversy in the media" is a more apt description. It isn't an event notable enough for its own article sure and I wasn't suggesting such a thing. However, him receiving coverage in the media for breaking that story is significant coverage prior to the outing and in combination with his documented significant involvement in other major events and substantive coverage of him as a general subject of interest it does merit having an article on him.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did not get significant coverage for breaking this story, which was in itself not especially notable. The story got coverage, but hardly any sources discussed him or his role in it. Probably because he wasn't considered worthy of note by sources not closely following the inner workings of reddit until October 2012. The amount of attention he was given for making this post was comparable to the amount of attention any reddit user gets when their post is picked up by the media: hardly any. Perhaps if "persons notable for one event and also mentioned in passing in the discussion of an event that was sort of notable" were criteria for inclusion I would agree that this article should be left as is. Breadblade (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and you plainly acknowledge that he has been covered by reliable sources in the context of multiple events. There is no basis for dismissing this coverage for not being as significant as other coverage or saying a source that does give significant coverage shouldn't be considered because you think it gives too much coverage to Internet happenings. By the same token there is no basis for your attempt to dismiss all persisting coverage of Brutsch himself, not the outing, if it in any way references anything related to the outing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 00:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every rationale for deletion i already gave at AfD #1 is still relevant today, so read that for the full rationale. This wound up as a stalemate then, with the closing admin "recommend[ing] reconsidering the issue of this person's lasting notability after some time has passed". We are here now some months down the road, and "The Devil's Advocate"'s fundamental misrepresentation of what it means to be "one event" and what it means for a person to be known only for one event shows no sign of letting up. Mr. Brutch has never done anything outside of being fired from his real-life job because he was outed as a controversial reddit moderator. There is no lasting notability, no greater cultural or historcal impact or significance, no precedent or history-setting moment following this event. This is a vindictive and spiteful BLP creation, of which the Wikipedia has a long and dreary history of. Tarc (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename He's definitely known for more than one thing - the controversy about him being doxxed by Gawker, the offensive subreddits he created (especially "jailbait", which got media attention even before he was doxxed), etc - and once he did a voluntary in-depth interview with CNN, he ceased to be a private individual by choice. Nowhere near enough time has passed since the last nomination to make the determination that he's maintaining a low profile, especially since there was a new reference to him being "the biggest troll on the web" (another of his ongoing reasons for notability) only a month ago. So try as I may, I cannot think of even one valid reason to delete this article, though I can think of many reasons why it should be kept. However, I also think it would be better titled by his username, Violentacrez, since that's the name by which most people know him even after his true identity was revealed. (Violentacrez currently redirects here.) Perhaps that would be a palatable compromise to reach consensus. HillbillyGoat (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know on the name. More recent sources mostly use his username, but it has been a mixed bag with plenty of sources using his real name more often than his username and I think some have used only his real name. One should also consider that he has tried to dissociate himself from that username. Still, I am not exactly opposed to that sort of rename.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Gawker article was about the subreddits he created, and the interview followed the media hype over the Gawker article, I don't think that those reasons for notability that you cite constitute seperate events. As far as his continued low profile, subsequent mentions of him haven't referred to anything he's done after October 2012. Just because people are still covering something that happened in October doesn't mean he's actively seeking out media attention in 2013. Breadblade (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I agree with everything you just stated, that still does not negate the fact that his actions (and the fallout therefrom) are still being discussed by individuals. When someone like me (who was not on Reddit when any of this occurred, and in general doesn't take an interest in such things) still remembers details about his subreddits and the controversy surrounding them, and still recognizes him by name, he is a public figure. This is especially true for someone who specifically sought controversy and attention for years under their username, and voluntarily submitted to an in-depth interview with a major media source under their real name. For all anyone knows, since he has sought attention to that extent in the past, he could be planning to profit from the controversy by writing a book. I therefore believe that six months is nowhere near enough time to establish low profile, if indeed that can ever be established. I do still think it should be renamed, however, since he is better known by his username. HillbillyGoat (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely agree that his outing (and the surrounding discussion) could still be considered notable and might deserve its own page, in which case the bulk of the nominated article could be moved and restructured onto such a page, redirected from "Brutsch" and "violentacrez." (as per above discussions.) I would be likely to reconsider my position if he were indeed to publish a book so far after-the-fact and receive some (necessarily Brutsch-related) publicity for it, but I haven't heard about any book deals yet. Breadblade (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has more than the temporary significance implied by BLP1E (it fails the third bullet point of BLP1E). Would be amenable to a rename to Violentacrez, with his real name being a redirect. AndreasJN466 18:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this fails the third bullet point of BLP1E. I'm pretty sure he has kept a low profile since the events revolving around his outing, as even the most recent news sources that mention him don't refer to anything that he's done after October 2012. Does anyone have any information on anything he's done in 2013? November 2012 even? Breadblade (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another recent mention of him with several paragraphs in the context of the controversial subreddit about suspects in the Boston bombings and it only uses his real name without anything that could even remotely be spun as a reference to the outing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That same article quotes an admin who notes that Brutsch is no longer on reddit, which makes it sound as if Brutsch has been keeping a low profile. Which refutes the claim of the user you're replying to about failing the third bullet point of BLP1E. The only other Brutsch mention just rehashes a portion of the October 2012 Gawker article that unmasked him. All roads lead back to the "outing" here. It's almost as if this person is significant for just one event. Breadblade (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what "rehashing" are you saying leads back to the outing? The idea that any reference to anything that was also covered during coverage of the outing means it is really just coverage in the context of the outing is an absurd twisting of the policy. It seems as if you are just looking for the most tenuous of connections to the outing to prop up your BLP1E objection, even though three events have actually been noted in the article and noted again several times in this discussion. Obviously, the whole context of that article is controversial subreddits, not outing, and no mention is made of outing at all. He is clearly getting a noteworthy mention in that context because his general activity on Reddit is considered noteworthy, not just his connection with a single event.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Gawker article brought him a brief spurt of media attention regarding his activity on reddit, which was not in itself notable. If it were, he might have receieved significant coverage for this activity before October 2012, when that article was released. Future references to Brutsch repeat the details about Brutsch discussed in the article. Breadblade (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the page in question and both AfDs and I'm seeing this pretty much exactly as Tarc, this is a low-profile individual who achieved a level of notoriety based on one-event. I would not be adverse to a separate conversation to rework the page to describe the event that led to the notoriety. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted several times, BLP1E doesn't apply when someone has been covered by reliable sources in the context of multiple events and no one has denied that this is the case, instead trying to trivialize the previous coverage and previous events. Jayen has further noted correctly that his role in the outing itself eliminates the third criteria and that doesn't even tell the whole story. Most coverage of the event was really coverage of Brutsch and most coverage since the event has been coverage of him. Reliable sources seem generally more interested in him than the event itself. That is because of his activity on objectionable subreddits and his close relationship with higher-ups on the site. It is absurd to act as if what reliable sources only really care about is that he was outed. Said sources consider him worthy of notice independently of the outing.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 22:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the previous coverage is being trivialized because there was virtually no significant coverage at all. If he had notability prior to his outing and all these events were "really about him," why didn't any non-trivial mentions of this person get picked up by any of those 4,000 publications before he was made notorious after-the-fact? Something tells me that the importance of these reddit events are being vastly overstated. Breadblade (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging relevant material to Reddit and Gawker, per WP:1E; I realize there are two events, but they still don't add up to the subject's meeting WP:BASIC. Miniapolis 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging any relevant materials (and am not sure that anything needs merging) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (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. Clear WP:SNOW consensus that this should exist in some form and can be developed further, notwithstanding any issues with its current state. In other words, see WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced. I think that it's better to just have separate pages for lawyers, judges, etc.. ❤ YutsiTalk/Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't delete plausible search terms. We might plausibly replace this content with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary listing, or a disambiguation page for lawyers, judges etc., but you can do that with ordinary editor tools without the need for an AfD. We certainly shouldn't turn it into a redlink because there's a good chance someone would type "jurist" in the searchbox.—S MarshallT/C 00:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could be made into a quality article, significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to what? "Legal profession" redirects to Lawyer, while this article covers a broader range of roles. Right now the article is about the word "jurist" not about the people themselves, in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would like to see an article about all people working in the field of law, however "Jurist" would probably not be a good title since it is rather obscure and used in different ways in different countries. In the USA it usually refers to a judge, as the article itself notes. Borock (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think S. Marshall and I are so far apart on this. Borock (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also possible to redirect to judge since this seems to be its most common meaning in English speaking countries. A sentence or two could be added to explain different shades of meaning. Borock (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely a notable topic, and distinct from judge, attorney, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is? Here is what the article itself says: 'Members of the general public are largely unaware of the term and are likely to confuse it with "juror".[citation needed] Although the word "jurist" can technically be applied to anyone having a thorough knowledge of law, American and Canadian lawyers usually use the word only to refer to a judge. The term "legal professional" may be used for convenience. Within the legal community usage of "jurist" is usually restricted to eminent judges or academics.' Borock (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valuable term linking Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt etc. (and supporting category tree) in a way that the alternatives would not. (That said, I do appreciate the limitations of the existing article text; if there was a consensus that it is too weak, then a redirect to Jurisprudence could be an alternative.) AllyD (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge with Jurisprudence, mainly because that is such a good article and jurists are people who "do" jurisprudence.Borock (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Distinct from lawyer and therefore notable — a jurist being a legal expert as opposed to a practicing attorney or sitting judge (although the latter may also be the former while most of the former are also the latter). There are content problems here, a bit too much "dictionary" in tone, but no reason to anticipate that this editing matter is insurmountable. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would not be unreasonable for someone to search for this term, nor would it be unreasonable ot start an article "John Smith (dates) was a nationality jurist etc". Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think this article is walking the line on WP:DICDEF, but that does seem like something that can be improved through normal editing. I don't think any one article such as Judge or Lawyer would make a good redirect target, since the term jurist is not exclusive to any one of those specific topics; if nothing else it could be turned into a type of disambiguation page that explains that "jurist" could be used to mean any one of several things. - SudoGhost 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Melville Madison Bigelow, Centralization and the Law: Scientific Legal Education (1906), p. 219:
Let us assume that you have learned all the rules and definitions and know the history of all the decisions of the courts. Are you then a lawyer? The Faculty may say yes; the State may say yes; the Bar Association may say yes; but what will the world say — the world of clients, that is the real world in which the lawyer lives and moves and has his being? The world may say yes, but the world's assent is always given grudgingly and under compulsion. Must the world say, 'This man is a lawyer'? No, not unless you can do the work of a lawyer. Your legal learning may entitle you to the title of jurist, but that is a different thing. A man may be both a lawyer and a jurist, but a jurist is not necessarily a lawyer, nor a lawyer necessarily a jurist. Both must possess an acquaintance with what we call the law, but that is all. The work of the jurist is the study, analysis, and arrangement of the law — work which can be done wholly in the seclusion of the library. The work of the lawyer is the satisfaction of the wishes of particular human beings for legal assistance — work which requires dealing to some extent therefore with people in the office, in the court room, or in the market-place. The relative importance of the lawyer and the jurist is not material to this discussion. Any highly civilized society requires both lawyers and jurists, both philosophers and men of affairs. As a mere matter of fact, there is a greater demand for men of affairs than for philosophers, for lawyers than for jurists; but the number of persons which the interests of society require should engage in a particular occupation, has nothing to do with the question of the importance of the different kinds of work done by those persons. It is important however to note the fundamental difference between the work of the lawyer and that of the jurist.
This is not the same definition of "jurist" that the article uses. I am not saying either is wrong Borock (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I link to this article often, but I was under the impression/delusion that it once had a section on the meaning of "jurist" as it pertains to ancient Roman jurisprudence (as in Gaius (jurist)). In that usage, it isn't a mere lexical item.[19]Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (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.
