Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 November	21 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. On the whole, many of the arguments for keeping strike me as flimsy at best. That said, it would be a significant stretch to say there's consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Saginaw[edit]

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

Non-notable ship without claim of notability and with a single reference to a fansite. There are WP:ROUTINE and passing mentions/videos aplenty in google, but no obvious WP:RS that I can see. Upgraded from PROD based on conversation with @Geo Swan:, the article creator on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "claim of notability" is the ship itself; ships of this size are almost invariably notable, and a quick search bears this out: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets look at these:

[7] is self published through AuthorHouse and thus not WP:RS.
[8] is 648 words long and the ship is not the primary topic, so it's unlikely that the ship is covered in depth.
[9] I don't have access to, but the ship is not the primary topic.
[10] I don't have access to, but the ship is not the primary topic.
[11] is eight lines of routine coverage of its construction
[12] is this ship used to illustrate a barely-related article.

I acknowledge that there may be more, but they'd need to be better than these. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the General Notability Guideline, significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material" Dankarl (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved the article from Saginaw (ship, 1953) to MV Saginaw, the proper title, and have fixed the AfD so the move shouldn't screw up the closing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is "the ship itself" a claim of notability? bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because freighters of this size are assumed notable unless sources can't be found. It's not like an individual car or aircraft; each ship is unique. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a link for that? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now that we're here at AfD, we can see whether or not this "assumption" is right. Is there any evidence that the ship passes the general notability guideline? If yes, I'm happy to keep the article; if no, the assumption was wrong. bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Articles are kept or deleted based on the closing administators interpretation of both our policies, and on widely accepted consensus. Yesterday I asked someone who placed {{prod}} tags to review the consensus at four {{afd}} based on almost exactly the same concern as those expressed in his prods. Nine minutes later the prod tagger promised to initiate this afd. Note: Nine minutes is not long enough to read my comment, read the four afd to any meaningful level of detail, and draft even a brief reply.
        Yes, I know that both policy and consensus are in a state of flux. Fine, then the tag placer had an obligation to read the earlier consensus, and explain when the consensus had changed, or why it should change, or when a new policy trumped the consensus. Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. It gets a full chapter as the John J. Boland III in Freighters of Manitowoc and is one of 15 ships in the scintillating video Great Lakes Ships Volume 6. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above Freighters of Manitowoc is selfpublished through AuthorHouse and not a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per "large ships are notable unless proven otherwise" policy in WP:SHIPS even in case of ships that are not very exciting. Tupsumato (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any policy that "large ships are notable unless proven otherwise" - could you clarify? And even if that were policy, how would that lead us to conclude "keep" if investigation on this page finds that the ship fails the notability guideline? bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for a thought fart. My point was that in the past large ships have been considered "almost invariably notable" like Bushranger said above, especially if they are of one-off unique design. However, if we look at e.g. Mitsui 56 series, it's safe to say that an individual ship in that ship class of 151+ mass-produced bulk carriers is unlikely to be notable unless something happened to it. Tupsumato (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the ship is a rather unremarkable lake freighter. PK T(alk) 14:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest this discussion should be closed due to a lapse of collegiality on the part of the nominator. WP:PROD stays active for seven days, or until someone removes the {{prod}} tag. Nominator himself removed the {{prod}} tag, and escalated this to an {{afd}}, nine minutes after I asked them to review the consensus established in four earlier {{afd}}:

I see this as seriously disruptive behavior.

We are all volunteers here, and all our time is valuable. In particular, the time of everyone participating here is valuable. If our nominator had instead read the earlier {{afd}}, and explained how their concerns differed from the concerns raised and solidly dismissed in the earlier {{afd}}, I would have had 6 days to try to address those concerns. We may have reached a civil and collegial agreement, during the remaining 6 days the {{prod}} had to run. This would have spared the time of everyone else who has participated here.

I suggest we should not endorse {{prod}} taggers escalating their {{prod}} challenges to full {{afd}} simply because they are not prepared to show the respect to other contributors required to take the time to answer civil and collegial questions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there are occasional groups of amateurs and volunteers whose work is nevertheless reliable, and should be considered reliable sources. In my personal opinion the boatnerd site is an instance of a site whose work should be considered reliable. I initiated a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#When can the work of amateurs and volunteers be considered reliable sources? What about the User:Geo Swan/boatnerd site?
Keep The larger and commissioned ship notability has been long standing as described by The Bushranger. From a quick look I also have to agree there is some disruptive behavior here in challenging that when the record is rather clear as noted in the comment immediately above. A discussion on the larger question of ship notability might be worth while and I might chime in on the side of consolidating some "articles" into groupings such as List of Empire ships (A), but this is the wrong place to address that issue. Palmeira (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obviously non-notable laker, one of hundreds if not thousands that were built, sailed, and scrapped without particular incident. Boatnerd may be a useful source but the fact that one site tries to catalogue everything doesn't confer notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By long tradition, as reflected in the four {{afd}} I listed above, multi-million dollar vessels, that may end up carrying over a billion dollars worth of cargo over their lifetime, have been considered worthy of inclusion here, even if their career has never had a "particular incident". We have about a dozen separate special purpose notability guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC, because the WP:GNG does not fit every single kind of topic. We don't have a specific special purpose notability guideline for ships. In those four earlier {{afd}} listed above it was suggested that essay WP:Notability (vehicles) applied -- and I believe that suggestion was thoroughly refuted, and it was pointed out no one ever reads the essay, which has basically been defacto deprecate.
  Maybe we need a new special purpose notability guideline, or we need to add new section(s) to an existing special purpose notability guideline.
  Until we have a new guideline, I would suggest the closing administrator close in line with the long precedence that very large vessels are notable, without requiring an "particular incidents" in their career -- unless a truly novel and compelling argument is presented here. But I see no truly novel or compelling argument. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm having to interpret this as "all lakers are notable, because all of them are documented on boatnerd and all are 'big'." But it isn't notable for freighters to cost millions of constant-2013-dollars and carry billions of constant-2013-dollars in cargo value; it's routine. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boatnerd or not, "all lakers are notable" would...actually be a very reasonable position to take. We need to rememeber that Wikipedia is not paper and stop defining "notability" as "would be in a dead tree tome". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a reasonable decision to take; it's a boat nerd position to take, in exactly the same way that "all locomotive classes are notable" would be a foamer position to take, or that "every comic character is notable" would be a fannish position to take. Notability is not the intersection of "fannish interest" and "sources", and in particular it is not a ship registry. And please stop attributing positions to me that I didn't take. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody attributed anything at all to you. I was speaking of Wikipedia as a whole and the very disturbing trend I have observed. Also, "all locomotive classes are notable" would also be a reasonable position to take. Comic characters are, however, an entirely different thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and Palmeira. Completeness is a positive virtue in an encyclopedia. If we have a longstanding practice of writing about ships above a certain benchmark, then it is better to cover them all rather than cultivating gaps. Palmeira's comment about preferring lists for some classes of ship has merit amd could be discussed.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per long established consensus that, subject to meeting WP:GNG via WP:RS, most ships over 100' long / 100 tons are notable enough to sustain an article. Vessels under 100/100 may also be notable in some cases. For evidence of the said consensus, see the record of ship-related AFD discussions. Take particular note of the reasons in the rare instances of deletion as to why the outcome was to delete. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a non sequiteur, unless you're now bypassing the GNG. Is there any evidence that this ship is notable? bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not bypassing the GNG at all, which is a guideline, not a policy. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of sources available online which could be used to improve the article, as a quick search using her IMO Number 5173786 proves. That the article as it currently stands needs improvement (infobox for a start), is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per many of the arguments already outlined. I would, however, like to see an actually guideline for ships be created because this comes up way too frequently and we waste so much time with the same arguments. —Diiscool (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a guideline for notability of ships and of many other things. It's the general notability guideline. Is this ship notable? bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stuart's assessment of the sources provided by The Bushranger. I do have access to those NY Times stories, and they hardly mention the ship - they're about other issues and mention it only in passing. As such, I don't think that notability is established. The notion that largish commercial ships are automatically notable is rather dubious - there have been many thousands of such ships sailing around at every point in time for the last 150 odd years, and few have received anything other than passing coverage or directory listings in reliable sources. While I agree that commissioned warships should be assumed notable unless proven otherwise, this is due to the wide availability of reliable sources which provide a descriptive summary of the construction and careers of even the most humble naval vessels. I'd like to see someone establish genuine notability for a randomly selected example of one the many thousands of bulk carriers which have been churned out of South Korean and Chinese yards over the last 30 years, registered in a flag of convenience country and ply the waters between non-Anglo countries before being scrapped. I've looked into doing it for some of the Australian coastal trading ships my Grandfather worked on, and couldn't pull it off. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 26 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Down & Dirty[edit]

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

I'm still fairly new to using this site, but I've seen queries for deleted pages and by what I'm seen for deleted bands, I can easily say that I doubt this band can pass for any valid inclusion either.

They don't even have their album out, they're not signed and every source on this page is a YouTube link. Second Skin (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how the band could possibly pass WP:GNG having found nearly nothing beyond Facebook pages and Twitter accounts which certainly wouldn't be considered significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I would suggest the associated act, Make Me Famous, probably also isn't notable enough to be covered here either. Stalwart111 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the band that the frontman originally belonged to does pass WP:MUSIC as the album it produced made the Billboard 200 [13]. The band's breakup did seem to draw some attention in the metal scene (a Google search of the frontman's name showed this), and it would not surprise me if the band actually became notable at some point in the future. All that being said, I could not find any reliable sources or substantial coverage of the band, and it seems to me that it fails WP:MUSIC now. If someone else could find independent reliable sources, I would gladly change me !vote to keep, but as for now it should be deleted, and then if it becomes notable, recreated. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND and lacks the coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article. feel free to ping me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:07, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baz Mohammad Mubariz[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Links given show he won one out of three fights. Don't know much about MMA but this doesn't seem very notable to me. Not really worth addressing the article's numerous cleanup issues since it looks beyond saving in any case. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 3 MMA fights (1 win) and no top tier fights or non-routine coverage. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Totally non-notable MMA organization - has not even held a single event Peter Rehse (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article about an MMA organization that has not yet had a single fight. This article's creation was clearly WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article. feel free to ping me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Vermont[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 5 MMA fights (3-2 record) with none of them top tier. Only link is to his fight record. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP about an MMA fighter with no top tier bouts. Papaursa (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article. feel free to ping me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baz Mohammad Mubariz[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Links given show he won one out of three fights. Don't know much about MMA but this doesn't seem very notable to me. Not really worth addressing the article's numerous cleanup issues since it looks beyond saving in any case. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 3 MMA fights (1 win) and no top tier fights or non-routine coverage. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Andrew Capasso[edit]

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

While the article does cite reliable sources, I don't think that these sources include coverage of sufficient depth to support a biographical article. As far as I can tell, Capasso's claim to "notability" comes from his alleged affair with a beauty queen and his alleged bribery of a judge to get lower alimony payments in his divorce. (Newspaper reports also indicate he was convicted of tax fraud, but that's not really a claim to notability in itself.) Virtually all the press coverage seems to center around the Hortense Gabel scandal, not Capasso's own life. His obituary describes him as being an "obscure city sewer contractor" prior to the scandal. This falls within the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ONEEVENT. *** Crotalus *** 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the creator. His coverage in reliable sources starts in 1987 at his conviction for tax evasion, and ends in 2001 at his death. He has obituaries in every major New York newspaper, and major coverage in a book that has full biographical details. The article is a stub but can contain more if others want to add more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion this article contains enough sourced material to pass WP:GNG. But perhaps more input is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough RS coverage for notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as having wide range of reliable sources. The wide publication of his obits speaks against BLP:1E Stuartyeates (talk) 00:16, 28 November 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 procedural close. An existing AFD is currently underway - feel free to contribute to that discussion here (non-admin close). Stalwart111 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosin[edit]

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

Suspicion of fabrication regarding claims of extraordinary career achievements

In the single online clip of the dozen mentioned clips, Carol Rosin claims:

- That in 1974, Wernher von Braun sent her, then a 6th grade school teacher, on a "mission".

- That three years later, she was a (quote) "Advisor to the People's Republic of China". I don't know what she means by that.

- That she visited over 100 countries starting in the late 1970s, which is quite a feat for someone so young, and that she learned about the respective governments' space programs.

The suspicion lies in that these last two credentials together seems the apex of her career, yet are not mentioned next to other achievements, despite having at least her own words as source, if not primary; while the (somewhat) toned-down, unsubstantiated achievements are listed.

My position on living bios is "non-notable until primary sources exist for claims of achievements", not that certain achievements are notable and some non-notable. I move that this article be nominated for deletion until such sources are added to the article itself. Henrik Erlandsson 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is a duplicated nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Rosin (2nd nomination) where HenrikErlandsson states that he mistakenly made this 3rd nomination instead of !voting on the 2nd nomination. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 00:27, 21 November 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. Not ruling out potential merging/redirecting as one user suggested, but there's no agreement to delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Eliot Prize (Truman State University)[edit]

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

Non-notable award. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this minor award is independently notable. The award is listed in many directories of literary prizes but these simply confirm the award's existence and don't serve to establish that it's notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Truman State University. If it is listed in many directories, it could be a plausible search term. It could also warrant a mention on that page, but I'll leave that to people who are more informed about it than me to decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a lot of poetry prizes that don't mean much (unlike the more well known Bollingen, Pushcart, etc.) but meet the minimal requirements for inclusion per notability guidelines, but this is a rather well-known prize so I'm confident this article could be properly expanded and that deletion isn't warranted in this instance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received a reasonable amount of attention for a poetry prize, even including some attention in newspapers outside Missouri such as [14] and [15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Arxiloxos, and add the following. This Prize is relatively new, and it tries to identify talented newer voices. Winners such as Rhina Espaillat who have gone on to distinguished careers do list this prize in their CVs, and the Poetry Foundation, for example, includes it in poet biographies (see http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/rhina-p-espaillat ). I suspect that when one of the Prize's winners gets a Pulitzer, this Prize will be listed amongst the early indications of talent. The judges are notable - nearly all have Wikipedia entries. I think the Prize meets the notability criterion adequately. Easchiff (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here are more notices of the Prize, from Harvard, from a literary magazine, and from Verse Wisconsin. Easchiff (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and WP:HEY, based on the information found. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the coverage I'm seeing is of the WP:ROUTINE 'hometown hero wins award' kind. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Reply: Perhaps, but coverage in rather large regional newspapers. The nj.com page is owned by the Star-Ledger which, while struggling recently, was the 9th-largest newspaper in the US (articles in its smaller paper often filter into the S-L and other partners). The philly.com page is owned by the Philadelphia Inquirer. Guess they're small-town rags in your estimation. Either way, they meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry: indeed. They'd be fine sources for this article if they actually contained in depth coverage of the award itself, rather than the person who had just won the award. But they don't. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Hey, no article on Wikipedia is perfect and many need more work (this one included), but claiming that mentions in reliable sources don't establish its notability because those some of those mentions are indirect or partial is an invalid splitting hairs argument.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry: the WP:GNG says addresses the topic directly and in detail is the measure. None of the independent sources I've seen do that. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: Yes, but when you have a few direct and a few indirect mentions, claiming the indirect mentions aren't good enough is disingenuous when you ignore the more direct sources. If an award wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned when profiling one of the awardees. Likewise, if the awardees are notable in their own right, their work offers credibility to the award that recognizes the work. If it wasn't a credible or notable award, a newspaper could easily dismiss a press release announcing a winner. Notability is often symbiotic. We can agree to disagree, but I fear you're looking at GNG very narrowly, and forgetting (1) it's a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule; and (2) guidelines are generally interpreted broadly in favour of inclusion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:08, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Physics[edit]

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

I originally nominated this for speedy deletion per CSD A7, but the article creator on the talk page pointed out that they were being managed by a somewhat prominent promotor, so I decided that it might be better to take it here. There are still issues with advertising, as it looks like the creator represents the promotor. The article fails WP:MUSIC and while the band might become notable in the future, it does not appear to have achieved notability yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to Barry Fey's Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fey He is the founder of Feyline International, now run by his son, Tyler Fey. Here is a link describing Feyline's importance in Colorado: http://www.denver.org/events/organizations/detail?o=5244&t= Here is the link showing Bass Physics is managed under Feyline International and their booking is managed by Madison House: http://www.bassphysics.com/#!contact/c21nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyline1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no notability presented, not even close to passing our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No coverage whatsoever. notability is not inherited from whoever is promoting the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT DELETE - Not Notable. IndieNewsReview (talk) 15:56, 24 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Of the three sources, the first is written by the subject, the second fails WP:RELY for being WP:QUESTIONABLE, and the third does not appear to exist. Rawlangs (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Vanity article that does not in any way establish the subject's notability. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 21:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt.. After eight years there are still no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. My position on living bios is "non-notable until primary sources exist for claims of achievements", not necessarily that certain achievements are notable and some non-notable. However, I nominate this article for deletion unless and until sources for the claims are added to the article itself. (In the only clip, she adds claims of having visited over 100 countries at a young age and learned of their respective space programs, as well as having been "Advisor to the People's Republic of China". Both claims are strangely absent from the article, with the clip linked.) Henrik Erlandsson 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete unless/until we get some real sources. The nominator's concerns about the ones we have now are very well-founded. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only a quarter of the claims in the article were true, we should be inundated with good sources... --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Institute for Security and Cooperation in Space may also need to be reviewed for notability and sourcing. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The only sources are those associated with the subject, and they in turn are of doubtful notability.Martinlc (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 25 November 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. Unsourced/does not attempt to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Andrews Heath[edit]

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

WP:NN businessman. Could be a WP:CSD#A7, but given the longevity of the article, thought best to take it here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A7 was previously rejected; still, neither the person nor the companies seem sufficiently notable. Super Mario Man 20:45, 26 November 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gruenberg[edit]

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

~~WP:NN journalist. Could be a WP:CSD#A7, but given the longevity of the article, thought best to take it here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)~~ Missed the mention of the pulitzer. (seriously jetlagged) Withdrawn. Toddst1 (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Pulitzer Prize winner (as already noted in the article, which means A7 clearly would not apply). Here is his obituary in the Washington Post[16]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pulitzer Prize winner, DC Bureau chief for a major Chicago paper, obit in the WaPo and ChiTri - seems enough to consider deleting might cause some harm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Next time, do a little checking WP:BEFORE. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator rightly brings to our attention a poorly written and sourced article. However, the subject of the article is notable as an investigative journalist and he won a Pulitzer Prize among other prestigous awards. He had four decades of journalism to build a body of work that is worthy of attention. Crtew (talk) 05:38, 21 November 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Carroll Binder[edit]

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

~~seemingly non-notable journalist whose notability appears to stem from donating money and papers to a university who established a scholarship in his name. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn per arxilos. Thanks for finding that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as a WP:MEMORIAL article. Apparently no one wrote about Binder while alive or dead, independently, that I can see. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. Apparently drop "Abner" when searching. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This journalist died in 1956 so we are stuck with old sources having limited online access. But, the "find sources" links for his professional byline, Carroll Binder, produce volumnious results in GBooks, GScholar, and GNews. He has a New York Times news obit, although it is paywalled so we can see only the headline ("CARROLL BINDER, EDITOR, DIES AT 60; Chief of Minneapolis Tribune Editorial Page Had Served on U.N. Information Unit Urged Freedom of Information) and first line--someone with full Times access can see the whole thing.[17] His bio is also included in the 1951 edition of Current Biography, but only a snippet is visible.[18] GNews shows that his columns were widely printed with his name as the headline. With due regard for avoiding FUTON bias, I conclude that he was notable in his time and that we are better serving our encyclopedic task by keeping him around. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of potential secondary sourcing here. — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine White[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced for over 6 years. Appears to have been a successful junior athlete but I found no evidence of any success as a senior. A few items of local news coverage confirm some of the facts in the article ([19], [20], [21], [22]) but no other coverage found. This shows entries in two senior triathlons but without finishing either one. Michig (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no live sources and her only successes have been as a junior or younger. Youth events generally don't show notability and it's worse when there are no sources to even support those claims. Possible COI since article was created by an SPA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think sourcing should be an issue as long as someone (myself perhaps) is willing to spend a small amount of time reviving dead links. I don't think the argument that the article subject was successful as junior athlete and has had no results as a U23 or Elite athlete has any relevancy. I think her race results and national championships are enough to warrant her notability on a national scale vs. a local one, but trouble might arise in trying to find a national source (outside of USA Triathlon - whose references could be viewed as mere press releases). Not sure where she would fall under WP:NSPORT#Triathlon since it does not discuss juniors. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the absence of any explicit criteria to cover juniors in the triathlon specific sports criteria, I'd say that junior achievements by themselves do not denote notability. Her results as listed at the ITU site shows only 7 ITU competitions for her, and of those, only 2 were at the senior (elite) level. Neither of those are events which meet any of the criteria listed for triathlon, and in both events, she did not finish (DNF). I see no significant coverage that would qualify her under the WP:GNG either. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 22 November 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. Not ruling out recreating as a redirect (as perscribed by the OP) if somebody wishes to do so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty[edit]

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

Repeatedly turned into a redirect then restored or rewritten. No version adequately demonstrates this book's notability. No version has reliable-source references. See talk page for details. Recommended outcome: Redirect to Sankar (film director) with history kept, with prejudice against re-creation (see WP:CSD#G4) unless reliable sources demonstrating notability are provided. Acceptable outcomes: Redirect without history being kept, outright deletion. See Talk:Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty#Significant past versions for a list of significantly-different versions in the edit history and a cumulative list of references (none of which are reliable sources) across all versions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been listed at Talk:Sankar (film director)#Nomination of Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty for deletion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, really no notability. If only books could be tagged with A7....There also seem to be copyright issues. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bot tagged this as a copyvio on or around October 17. It was a false positive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable book. Could not find any independent source discussing this book. It seems this article is a part of a walled garden created by the users Wikikl or Wikikl-2. The latter one is currently under an indefinite block for some reason. The article in the walled garden are related to a person named Sankar. It includes, Oru valakilukkathinte Oarmakku, Oru Pennum Parayathathu, Poopoloral, Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty, and Streetlight (film). The last mentioned article is about a Malayalam movie which is yet be released. I could not find the present status of this film. Salih (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The indef-block is purely technical and is not prejudicial against the editor in any way. It is the result of some technical problems related to his renaming from his old name, Senseltd (talk · contribs), which resulted in his editing again under the old name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then it's the single user who has created this walled garden which is an indication of a strong conflict of interest. Salih (talk) 09:15, 27 November 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. Not a lot of participation here, but since it's already been deleted, I'm inclined to believe this isn't controversial. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEDesign[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted, but then I foolishly allowed it to be recreated through the Articles for Creation process. Unfortunately, CSD G4 doesn't apply because it's not identical to the deleted version. The current version still fails WP:CORP, however. Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's some mention of them, and if stuff like the cheap rickshawmobile come to fruition, then there's likely to be coverage then, so no prejudice to recreation in the future if that happens. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald N. Wood[edit]

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

Unsourced for nearly 7 years. I could confirm that he has had a few books published but Google Scholar doesn't suggest he's widely cited. No coverage of him found at all. Michig (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this page at the request of a handful of Donald N. Wood's friends who were, shall we say, technology challenged (retirement+). The original effort was to get him in Wikipedia for a reference to other pages (e.g., Earlham College). Interestingly, just noted that someone edited off the alumni page for some reason. He recently moved to Davis California and is in the process of determining what his academic contributions to UC Davis will be (he was teaching at OLLI at Duke University prior to his move). If updating his page will keep it "alive," I will endeavor to do so. v908

Not really, unless you can demonstrate that he meets the guidance set out in Wikipedia:Notability and back it up with citations of reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found a few things, such as winning the Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in 2005[23], a couple old academic book reviews of indeterminate length: [24][25][26] Cite count is low for PROF. Maybe if we can find a bunch more book reviews it would pass on AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wouldn't seem to pass either WP:GNG or WP:PROF and the good helping of WP:COI doesn't help either. Stalwart111 01:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look at the links that Green Cardamom came up with. The last link actually permits to see the book review using the "preview" button (showing the first page of the article). It is only a very short paragraph and I don't attach much value to it. I can't see the other ones, but even if they are more substantial, that would not be much to base notability on. The award does not seem to be something major. --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 21 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velizar Dimov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced BLP, appears to have been written by the subject himself. A quick Google search doesn't indicate that this person ever played for the professional teams Slavia and Beroe that have been listed. PROD was contested by the article's creator, who is probably also the subject of the article, without providing a reason. While the article is no longer unsourced, albeit unreliably, the notability concerns remain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography with no reliable sources. Also fails NFOOTBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY unless source can be found for his A PFG apps. Fenix down (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotional unsourced BLP. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:09, 22 November 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. The article was deleted at 10:45, 22 November 2013 by Deb (talk · contribs), who did not close this discussion. v/r (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OS2World[edit]

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

Note that the photo shows only 2 members online.... This does not seem notable to me. Tritario (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete: non-notable. a quick google search only shows the sited, a couple small blogs, and social media. Aunva7
Where is the article that was wrote? OS2World leaded the petition to open source IBM that is mentioned in OS/2 articles and also took part of the OOXML voting on Sweeden. It is a relevant site, I disagree with your arguments Martiniturbide (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 18:44, 20 November 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.

Can you please point me to the link of the "archive of the debate"? Martiniturbide (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martiniturbide (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipediands to do discuss, they just delete content and knowledge. There is not use to help improving wikipedia, I prefer joining efforts with the Internet Archive.[reply]

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dr. Khalid A. AdDamigh[edit]

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

This person seems non-notable. He's a professor at a university, an advisor to the saudi arabian ministry of education, and cultural attache of a cultural center. This article used to be a resume, but has now been somewhat truncated, although there is still a huge undue weight issue. Benboy00 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete bordering on speedy per CSD G11. I nominated one of the previous creations of this article for a speedy delete as a copy-vio, because it was a copy and paste of the CV from the university page, which had reserved rights. It doesn't appear at first glance to be a copy vio anymore, but the list of works and projects is fairly promotional. I'm not sure if it quite qualifies for speedy deletion per G11, but he certainly fails WP:PROF, which I check again after making sure that it wasn't the CV reposted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kfcc sa You can check his personal website (http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Work-experience.aspx & http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Committees-and-Organisations.aspx) and you will see that his work experience and what has he done for higher education in many countries beside Saudi Arabia. You can check his awards: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Awards_E0328-4387.aspx. — Kfcc sa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 23 November 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. Many of the arguments for keeping seem extremely weak, forcing me to discount them. GNG issues prevail. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson[edit]

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

Contested PROD by author with no rationale given. Article's subject fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant media coverage nor does he pass WP:FOOTY as he hasn't played for a club in fully professional league or represented his country at senior international level. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - absolutely senseless nomination - the signing of this player by one of the top european football clubs as a first team player has been reported in every national Scottish and British news and sports program today - see for example BBC Sport, The Scotsman, The Daily Record, Sky Sports, Scottish TV, Independent in Ireland, The Telegraph, Herald Scotland, The Daily Express --_nonsense ferret 23:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources you've listed all refer to his transfer which is considered no more than routine coverage. The article is suppose to be biographical but the only meaningful coverage he has had is about his transfer which can't be the sole basis for an article. WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The main topic of those sources you've provided is the transfer itself not Mr. Friðjónsson, that's why article is so lacking in content. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

literally thousands of football fans will be asking who is this new striker that has signed for celtic, not to recognise there is a wide interest in the details of his career so far and have an article about him when all the newspapers are reporting it is really silly IMHO. --_nonsense ferret 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Look at the number of page views too today? --_nonsense ferret 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it maybe highly searched but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper it is an encyclopedia, not for the purpose of pleasing football fans of which I am one. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E - "young player signs for big club" - we see literally hundreds of these articles every bloody year and they always get deleted. Giant Snowman 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't one of those situations of a single byeline in a couple of newspapers which I agree is the norm for young players in big clubs. In this situation all the major national TV channels led with this story in their flagship news. The player will be playing first team football in January and the case then for recreating this article will be unarguable. In the meantime we have an unusual amount of high profile coverage for a player in this situation, which is a lot more than other first team players in lesser teams in the same league will have received who nonetheless have automatic qualification due to NFOOTY with hardly any coverage. Time for a common sense solution recognising the unusual media frenzy that attracts any player signing for the first team of an absolutely massive club, pointless to delete now and have to recreate this in four weeks while in the meantime it is attracting a lot of hits. --_nonsense ferret 13:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The player should sit on this list as number 19, Celtic_F.C.#First_team_squad - not to have a page for the player seems silly looking at the list. --_nonsense ferret 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball his debut for Celtic is not certain to take place nor can we keep an article for aesthetic reasons which is what the latter part of your latest reply suggests. If this debate is closed as delete you can have article userified and you can re-add it to the mainspace if & when he makes his debut. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per CBALL I would say that looking at the comments made by the manager this player at the very least managing a few minutes of time in the team in the very near future is "almost certain" within the terms of CBALL - really who would bet against it? My point is not an aesthetic one, it is that if you are signed clearly and demonstrably with the intention to be used as a first team player for a club like that, due to the interest from the media, the unusual weight and depth of coverage pushes it beyond the classic 'young player signs for the youth team of a big club' situation - bit of WP:COMMONSENSE is called for I reckons. --_nonsense ferret 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) There are precedents of previous deletion discussions in somewhat similar circumstances - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fraser_Aird_(2nd_nomination) - the situation may not be as clear cut as is being suggested. --_nonsense ferret 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Article can be resurrected if / when he plays for Celtic. There is long standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that "Player will almost certainly play in WP:FPL soon" is not valid. Fenix down (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources if talking about multiple events would likely meet WP:GNG, but at the moment they fail WP:BLP1E as only about one event. This Alongside failing WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a WP:FPL its currently a no go. Suggest converting to a user page draft and recreating once he meets the these criteria's.Blethering Scot 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - inane nomination given the widespread coverage and more evidence that NFOOTBALL is not fit for purpose. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Except that all the coverage is about a single transfer of the player from one club to another, therefore WP:BLP1E as has been noted several times above. Until he actually starts playing he doesn't pass NFOOTY, and even then there may well be questions around GNG if he only ends up playing a handful of game. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want to waste too much more time on this as we all know Hólmbert will get deleted only to 'Newco' in a few weeks anyway. But what about all the stuff in the national media in his home country about joining Fram, scoring matchwinning goals (and hattricks) in his national Premier League, scoring goals in national cup finals, going on trial to a Dutch club and said Dutch club trying to buy him? Is this worth less than Scottish 'national' media (mostly local editions of English publications)? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like nonsense to me anyway. Why not be sensible and give it a few weeks to see if he is going to make the team, it sounds like he probably is given the sounds from the manager. I don't see the point in hacking off contributors to the wiki. I think in cases like this ppl should remember Wikipedia:SPIRIT DavidDublin (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has just been signed by one of the biggest football clubs in the world. Why on Earth would the article be deleted? It's ridiculous that it's even being suggested. He's previously played in Iceland's top divsion. Do you have to play in a particular league to have a Wikipedia entry? Jesus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.99.85 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 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 no consensus. There are some valid arguments made by those who wish to delete this, but there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith. I would suggest that the page's author seek help at WP:RSN to help them determine which of the sources they wish to use would be suitable and which would not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no obvious reason that this page should be deleted. Edits were made to resolve the earlier criticism by reddogsix on three points:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

(1)The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2012)

(2)This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012)

(3) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (October 2012)

In response to the above:

(1) Armstrong has a long and established record in his area.

(2) There are no self-published sources on the page

(3) All the sources are reputable and independent third party publishers.

I strongly support this page being kept on, and am not sure why the deletion notice is continuing -- I have asked reddogsix to explain (his) further objections, but without a response. Durandus (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I was involved in "real-life". 8-)

As indicated above, the "individual [is] lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO." Please provide support as to how the individual meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Also please provide valid references in the article to support those comments. reddogsix (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not pass our notability guidelines. The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article cites three sources: the subject's blog [27], a profile he wrote for Amazon [28] and an apologetic work written by the subject [29]. None of these are independent of the subject. A Google search reveals more things written by the subject and discussion of the subject on unreliable blogs and apologetics websites, but none of these is enough to confer notability. I see no reason to think that the subject meets any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

From WP:AUTHOR:

Extended content

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

A. The Foreword of Armstrong's first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), was written by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, a major Catholic catechist and author, whose cause is now being considered for sainthood. He gave a glowing recommendation of Armstrong's apologetics in the Foreword, and he is listed on Wikipedia, too.

B. Dr. Scott Hahn: probably the most well-known Catholic apologist today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002; albeit self-published). He has a Wikipedia entry as well.

C. Joseph Pearce: arguably the leading Catholic biographer alive today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's latest book, The Quotable Newman. He also has a Wikipedia entry.

D. The esteem and importance in which Armstrong and his work is held by virtually all the most important fellow Catholic apologists across the board is shown in what they have said about him, in unsolicited remarks. These are listed on his Literary Resume page online:

Dr. Scott Hahn: "Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents." / "Thanks again for the great work you're doing for Christ and His Church."

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author): "I always appreciate your work."

Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home): "You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!"

Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist and prolific author [listed in Wikipedia]; editor of Envoy Magazine): "I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church." / "Keep up the fantastic work with "Biblical Catholicism." All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it."

Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press): "Your site continues to look good and to be among the most useful."

Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster; listed in Wikipedia): "There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong."

Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books; listed in Wikipedia): "I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site."

Moreover, the fact that Armstrong has been published by four major Catholic publishers of apologetics is significant: Sophia Institute Press (it specializes in Catholic classics, and Armstrong is its best-selling author): five books; Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher, with a Wikipedia entry): a pamphlet (Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked) and notes for the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible; Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization, and Saint Benedict Press (eight books in all, and a very popular pamphlet) shows that he is widely respected in this sub-community, as an author and apologist. He also worked on staff for three years as an online moderator for the forum at The Coming Home Network: a major and well-known Catholic organization.

He has been published in many of the important Catholic apologetics magazines, multiple times: This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), The Catholic Answer, The Coming Home Newsletter, Envoy Magazine, and The Latin Mass, among others.

He has appeared about twenty times on Catholic radio shows,several of them nationally syndicated (EWTN), such as Catholic Answers Live (twice), Catholic Connection (Teresa Tomeo), Kresta in the Afternoon (three times), and Faith and Family Live (Steve Wood), among others.

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Armstrong specializes in "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (the name of his website), and this is considered an important aspect of modern Catholic apologetics. He consciously writes books for the masses and tries to make Catholicism more understandable to them. If it is objected that he is not an academic, it should also be noted that many of the most famous and influential and respected Catholic apologists were and are not, either, or (like Armstrong) had no theological degree or formal training. G. K. Chesterton had no college degree at all. Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, and Malcolm Muggeridge were academics, but not in theology, as was the Anglican C. S. Lewis (an English professor). Karl Keating and Frank Sheed were lawyers. This is nothing new. There are plenty of lay Catholic apologists, fully encouraged by the Catholic Church.

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Armstrong's work has been the subject of numerous prominent feature articles and interviews in the Catholic community. He has these listed online, on his Literary Resume page:

A. He received the award, Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for "Best New Evangelist" (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10).

B. His website (online since February 1997, with nearly 2,500 articles) was positively reviewed in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998.

C. "Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics' "Socratic Evangelist," interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature "Diplomatic Corps," Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9.

D. Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004.

E. Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight.

F. Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, August 26 - September 1, 2007 issue.

G. His book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (Lulu) was reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Fr. Stravinskas will also in the near future write reviews of Armstrong's two "officially published" books in 2012: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers) and The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press).

H. "'Can I Get a Quote on That?': An Interview With Dave Armstrong," Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist (who hosts shows on Chesterton on the EWTN television network), is a leading expert on Chesterton. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society (Ahlquist is President). It was devoted primarily to Armstrong's book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton.

I. "My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz," of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011)

J. "Ten must-see web resources for Catholics" (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; Armstrong's full-time apologetics ministry was one of the ten profiled).

K. "Lessons from Catholic Evangelists," by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012. [Armstrong was cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article]

L. Reviews of Armstrong's books on Amazon come from a variety of well-known, active fellow apologists, and his books are rated highly (usually four stars or above).

"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Armstrong's body of work (even ten of his self-published Lulu books, as in this instance), was regarded so highly that a set of them was published by Logos Bible Software: the leading company devoted to online / computer / electronic Christian and biblical resources. They offer the Dave Armstrong Collection. This is doubly significant because Logos is primarily a Protestant organization. They do have a Catholic division now, and Armstrong is one of the few living Catholic authors included. If we include these published works, it brings Armstrong's total of "officially" (not only self-published works) to eighteen, which is quite notable and significant for any author to achieve.

Furthermore, the libraries that stock Armstrong's books indicate the importance given to them:

A. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) -- this can be verified at Google books -- is carried in the libraries of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Marquette University, Harvard Divinity School, and at least 23 others.

B. The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is in eleven libraries.

C. The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is also carried in eleven libraries.

D. Even Protestant seminaries and colleges carry his books. Dallas Theological Seminary has three of Armstrong's Sophia books. Liberty University has The Catholic Verses. Hope College, Geneva College, Abilene Christian University, Master's Seminary, and three others have one or more of his books.

Moreover, his thus far self-published book, The Quotable Wesley, is being seriously considered for publication, by a major Wesleyan publisher, Beacon Hill Press (no small feat for a Catholic apologist, if it is accepted).

Lastly, if it is objected that Armstrong publishes books on his own, in addition to his eighteen "official" ones, it should be noted that they (or a revision, as in one case) were later published by conventional publishers in four instances (and with three of those, even with minimal additional editing). This includes his most famous title, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. If The Quotable Wesley is "officially" published, that will be the fifth time this has happened. This, along with the Logos Collection, indicates the high quality even of his self-published work, and of his editing skills (in the case of collections of quotations). His body of "official" work (eighteen volumes published by reputable five publishers, including a Protestant one) is indeed substantial and noteworthy: hardly deserving of the disdain shown by the reviewers who wish to delete his entry.

Logos-Word 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not going to wade through everything you've posted above, especially since much of it is obviously flawed. The standards of the people who have published his books has nothing to do with notability, the libraries that carry his books have nothing to do with notability, his theological qualifications have nothing to do with notability, the people who have said nice things about his books have nothing to do with notability, the number of times his books have been printed has nothing to do with notability. Hut 8.5 21:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; granted I am new at Wikipedia and am not intimately familiar with every jot and tittle of Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that I addressed (at least in part of my remarks) what you were asking for. If you dismiss all the elements you cite above, they still (it seems to me) have relevance for the inclusion of an author (but maybe not), which is one thing "reddogsix" was critiquing. If we stick to notability alone (your big beef), let's look at what you yourself objected to. You wrote: "The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I provided plenty of those (if you even read them), and they are (seems to me) significant:

1) Book reviews in well-known Catholic periodicals: Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Insight, National Catholic Register, The Catholic Response, and Gilbert Magazine. If you are unfamiliar with these (depending on how much you know about the Catholic and Catholic apologetics worlds), you can look them up (especially the first and third).

2) Website award (1998) from Envoy Magazine, and website reviews in New Covenant and OSV Newsweekly.

3) Interviews in Envoy Magazine and The Catholic World Report.

Between all of them, that is eight different periodicals. Is that enough? How many are required? Does a high number of published books (by independent publishers) have to do with notability? Does being published by five notable publishers have to do with it? If 18 books of such a nature is not "notable" in a field (Armstrong's number), what is? 30, 40 books? Virtually no Catholic apologists have accomplished that, nor many authors in any field. So it leaves me scratching my head, as to what is required here. As I read the notability guidelines, Armstrong seems to qualify.

Logos-Word 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As already stated above, that's a lot of text to read; and frankly, I don't know where to begin. While some of it does bring up a few points, most of it still doesn't help the article meet notability guidlines. Strictly as an editor reviewing at the article, this doesn't even have enough citations. The three references are made up by two from the subject's blog, and one from a blogger that reccomends the subject's work. While the last one was from a reputable source, it can still be argued if that really counts. To have notability you need to have citations from a number of sources, which the article does not have. How many books that subject has published does not contribute to notability, as already stated above. I'm going to have to put my vote in for deletion on this one. CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a few hours today adding several links to the article, precisely in order to overcome these objections, but that has been deleted[30] (some kind of "conflict edit"): apparently because I added a link to Armstrong's blog and this was impermissible (as I said above, I'm new at this Wikipedia stuff). Now we have to re-invent the wheel. The last comment again gives the same tired objection of not having "citations from a number of sources," which is what I described above and tried to add to the article. But if the new material is simply deleted for some reason, then I have wasted my time. Armstrong's credentials: which I believe meet notability criteria, are mentioned above. I described them in detail because people were making out that he had none (the original complaint implied that he was self-published only). So I provided plenty of his credentials (what I thought was relevant for notability; perhaps some of it was not), only to have people complain that I write too much. Oh well; I tried. Logos-Word 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - What continues to be missed in the above dissertation is the lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, Logos-Word, you still are not getting it. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source needs to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One signal that a source engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Since anyone can post at amazon.com and amazon.com does not publish corrections, amazon.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Deleting your posting of amazon.com was correct.[31] Under the same reasoning, Wikipedia itself does not qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source. Your posting to the site socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com triggered the automated User:XLinkBot. Not only is socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com not a Wikipedia reliable source, it is a URL that has caused problems in Wikipedia to the point to where it was added to an automated bot so that a computer can be on the look out for it. Forwards in your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG. In fact, forwards in your book are physically connected to the topic! What you say in an interview is not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, although what the interviewer says in the interview is independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, but reviews of the book, what others quote from your book in their newspaper article, magazine article, and book may be independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources because they usually do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You need to forget the sources that are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and the sources that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone articles). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't have any sources at all. Though this is often a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM type of problem, I don't think it is in this case. I couldn't find anything I would consider to be a reliable source so the subject fails WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Happy to consider sources if someone can find some. This issue here seems not to be that notability has not been asserted; more than it has been asserted but not verified. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I collapsed a portion of Logos-Word's analysis (it is not deleted; reviewing admins will still read it) just to make the whole discussion easier to read. It's not an effort to remove someone's opinion or censor comments - it's just to allow people to move right to the subsequent discussion about the arguments Logos-Word has suggested should be considered. If anyone is unhappy, please feel free to revert. The edit was made in good faith. Have also cleaned up some indentation which was messing with the AFD log and some other formatting stuff. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong' - User:Jimbo Wales/Quotations: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." The Biography of Dave Armstrong does not meet W:GNG. The keep iVotes above assert that a Writings of Dave Armstrong topic meet WP:GNG, and I don't think there is disagreement on that. We keep running into this same problem with scholars, authors, and other writers: the independent reliable sources do not write about their life but do write about their writings. They cite their writings, they quote from their writings, they comment on their writings. Wikipedia has only two "Writings of" articles,[32]. WP:GNG does not require the writings of a person to be famous writings. GNG only requires that there be enough independent coverage on a topic for a stand alone article on that topic. The sum of all human knowledge includes topics that are limited to the writings of scholars, authors, and other writers. At present, we force writer topics to qualify for a biography article to allow their independently sourced writing information to appear in Wikipedia in a stand alone article. Wikipedia needs to change that to align it's efforts to match what the reliable sources in fact are writing when it comes to scholars, authors, and other writers. This Dave Armstrong topic is as good starting test case as any (perhaps an even better test case due to the nature of the writings). Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong. If the closing admin closes as keeps renames to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong,' I would be happy to bring this same argument at DRV as a test case. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added many sources to the entry in accordance with the requirements helpfully explained above (as far as I understand them, as a rookie). They were all published articles, reviews, etc., in paper periodicals (NOT web pages). Also, I wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson? How are they so different from him? I'm trying to understand what makes for a "notable" author. 18 "officially published" books in a field and numerous articles and book reviews and features in print (real magazines) do not indicate this? In this instance, it is a sub-genre of writing, "Catholic apologetics." According to Karl Keating (author, apologist, and President of Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization), a book that sells upwards of 10,000 copies is considered a bestseller in this niche field. Armstrong has many of those (at least five), and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers (one not even primarily Catholic) this year alone. What does it take, then? The comments from Uzma Gamal (12:57, 12 October 2012) were very interesting. -- Logos-Word 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[33] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic. You may want to add URL links to each of those further reading sources by placing the information in Template:Citations. The Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) article does not cite any references. "Citing" to references means placing a footnote at the end of a sentence as described in How to place an inline citation using ref tags. As for being worthy of a Wikipedia page, that is meaningless. Importance notability or significance notability is not what Wikipedia:Notability is about. Have you looked at the WP:GNG link I posted multiple times? The information from that link is why AfD deletion decisions are based on quantity of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. How many sentences do you think you can write about Armstrong having at least five books that have sold upwards of 10,000 copies and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers? I can get one sentence out of that. Should Wikipedia have a one sentence article? That would not make any sense.
You ask what makes for a "notable" author. Are you asking what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" life of an author or what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" writings of an author? The two are different topics and AfD is about whether one topic listed at AfD qualifies for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. The topic for Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) is about the life of an author and that is what is being reviewed now at AfD. Do you think the Wikipedia reliable sources are writing about his life or writing about Armstrong's own writings? For example, does "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" write about Armstrong's life? No. It writes about Armstrong's own writings. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" counts under WP:GNG towards a Wikipedia article on Writings of Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) qualifying for a stand alone article at AfD. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" does not help at this AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you added to the article, "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received."[34] What happened to the footnote at the end of each of those two sentences? How are people reading the article going to check -- to verify -- that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia reliable source independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic if you do not add a footnote to the end of a sentence? Wikipedia:Verifiability was made one of only three Wikipedia core policies so that it would be worthy of people's attention above just about all else. Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received" is not a summary of the writings of a reliable source that is independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic, then there is no basis to include that information in the Wikipedia article. The same is true for all that text under the "Biography" subsection. Where is the footnote at the end of each of those sentences that will allow a reader to verify that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia? I see above that you wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson. That actually is addressed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gamal asked: "You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic." Nice try. I did that precisely because you wrote, above: "Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources . . . Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone [sic] articles)." Thus, I posted articles from periodicals. Most of them do not have a link since most are not online, or no longer online (and you said websites and blogs are unreliable anyway): but they can be checked, just as any bibliographical source can be. These articles are "out there." They exist. Others have a link, but it is to Armstrong's site (he cut-and-pasted the articles onto his blog in several instances; e.g., the interview with Dale Ahlquist of Gilbert Magazine, about Chesterton), and I was informed above that links to his blog are automatically deleted, because (who knows why?) it has caused problems of some sort in the past. Thus, those sources can't be added, and no one can go read them (unless they search independently). Yet other articles are only available in a temporary archive at Catholic Answers (e.g., four articles published in This Rock in 2004), so I thought it best not to make those links. Links to the articles I added (where they exist at all: and some are already obsolete) can be found on Armstrong's "Literary Resume" page on his blog (linked from the top right of the home page): this is where most of the info. I have added was found. Other possible links would be on Internet Archive only, which I deemed best not to bother including (figuring -- the way it has been going -- the validity would be disputed).

This is my explanation for what I did. It was a perfectly rational response from a "Wikipedia rookie" (I probably screwed up again in some fashion, regarding these endless guidelines, but I'm explaining my rationale, from where I sit and what I know about Wikipedia policies at this point: which obviously ain't much! LOL). The whole process is far more complicated than I ever realized. In any event, I've spent more than enough time here (way too much, in retrospect). If the article goes down, it goes down. It's pointless for me to spend more of my time on this when it seems to be a futile effort, on all counts. I will say, however (on a positive note) that it's heartening to me to see that Wikipedia has such high standards, because I'm an enthusiastic advocate of Wikipedia and use it all the time (and always defend it when folks run it down as a supposedly altogether unreliable, unscholarly source). Thus, despite my present exasperation and frustration over having wasted so much of my time for what may end up as "nothing", I'm truly delighted to see this rigor and high concern for accuracy and substantiation. I'm one with y'all there. But I don't have time to keep pursuing this, and it's no high priority to me at all. It's become a "diminishing returns" scenario, so I'm done with the effort. Thanks for listening to my opinions and bearing with my considerable ignorance of Wikipedia policies (for which I apologize). For what it's worth, I agree with the reasoning that the article could or should be kept as a "Writings of" article (presumably modified accordingly). That makes sense, but others (who know the ropes around here) will have to argue that case. Logos-Word 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1. This is a matter for normal discussion and editing, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Direction members[edit]

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

Propose merge to One Direction#Members. Laun chba ller 17:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – AFD is for deletion; Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is for merge proposals. –anemone projectors– 17:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 - nominator is not advocating deletion but instead a merge. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:48, 20 November 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan women's national cricket team[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG for notability. Bhtpbank (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Evidence of non trivial coverage in reliable sources - [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. These just from the first page of a google search. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources. I'd be interested to know why the nominator thinks that the articles fails WP:GNG. Or is this a case of WP:BEFORE not being followed? St Anselm (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above sources, as well as the subject matter further meeting WP:CRIN as it is about a national cricket team. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. Sources presented above by User:Clavdia chauchat qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every one of the sources pointed out by Clavdia chauchat has this as the primary topic; coverage is both significant, and from multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam Software[edit]

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

I do not see anu claim to current notability in this promotional article-- I see claims that they hope to become a notable company. someday DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and possibly speedy delete - This company was the subject of an article that was deleted as a result of a 2011 AfD. Many of the sources in the current article are press releases. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeam

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeam Software

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biagini Passo – Golf Country Cabrio[edit]

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

No references, not very many Google results, very little coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicative of Volkswagen Golf Mk1#Golf Cabriolet and insufficiently noteworthy for a separate article. Dashed title does not make for a plausible redirect term. "Golf Cabriolet" and "Biagini Passo" yield more results than "Golf Country Cabrio", and could be created as redirects. Super Mario Man 20:17, 26 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is basically just a family name: not all names are notable. The clan seems to exist - see here - but I can find no reliable sources that discuss it. Mere existence does not confer notability and redirecting to, say, Naushahro Feroze District is inappropriate because they could be in other districts also. Sitush (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. One-sentence article with no claim of significance and no clear redirect target. Super Mario Man 20:53, 26 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SCP - WANDER[edit]

(Find video game sources: "SCP - WANDER" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Poorly referenced article about an non-existent, non-notable video game. - Mr X 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete as WP:CRYSTAL not passing WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:41, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Reid[edit]

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

non-notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentioned only in primary sources and in few news (and I couldn't find additional sources), and hence it doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 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. Redirects are cheap, so while there seems to be a rough agreement that the title is an unlikely search term, somebody may wish to recreate this as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woody's Roundup[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced, fails WP:GNG, etc. The article is about a fictional TV show shortly seen on Toy Story 2. The "show" is nothing significant and also has no episodes. The article may also constitutes original research. Mediran (t • c) 10:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A fictional TV show inside a movie is not notable. I would be open to a redirect to Toy Story 2, but I think the search term is so unlikely that there is no real reason to not just straight up delete this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, probably into List of Toy Story characters. Other major movie series (and Toy Story is certainly a major movie series) have catch-all pages for minor characters/details, and that page seems to be the one for Toy Story. p.s. Redirects for this sort of thing are common and (in my opinion) appropriate. e.g. Al's Toy Barn redirects to Toy Story 2. Adpete (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire article is worth two sentences in Toy Story 2 article, plot section. It has no due weight and no notability. That said, this huge degree of overcoverage of other works of art, which is a violation of WP:NFCC, frightens me; one day, someone is bound to sue Wikipedia for overextending fair use. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree search term would be unlikely, but not impossible. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:27, 27 November 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. I've read this entire discussion, as well as the article's talk page and comments about it at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 149#Why is the Arbitration Committee undeleting libel instead of oversighting it?, and while there has been quite a bit to sift through, consensus seems clear to me. It has long been accepted that BLP, especially BLP1E, overrides GNG, which may have been technically met here. By numbers, a vast majority of participating users have voted in favor of deletion and/or redirecting. By reasoning—the more important metric—that same side of the debate also seems to prevail, essentially arguing that while the subject of the article has been discussed within extensive journalism, the entire body of coverage is of a transient nature. In its current state, the article is an indiscriminate collection of negative events (non-events, in most cases) in this person's life which have been dug up by the media. The sentences are heavily sourced, but hardly well-sourced.

Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the subject's motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for future passers-by: the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Karr, Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Reich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. L Faraone 18:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghani Family[edit]

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

An article on a non notable Pakistani business family that fails WP:GNG. Their business is somewhat notable so I tried to redirect to that page but the editor who started this article probably opposes it. SMS ^Talk 09:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable family (per GNG), owners Ghani Group of Companies, a company itself of minor notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes and the article was created by Ghani123 (talk · contribs), obvious self promotion and conflict of interest. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Conflict of interest creation in the first place. Probably a marketing attempt. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not inherited; an article on the business group might be warranted, but there's no evidence of inherent notability for the family in the extant article. Disclosure: I deleted an earlier version of this article under speedy deletion criterion A7. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable family. Anything about them that is relevant to a notable business can be included in those articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable group of people; could have been speedied as an A7 once again. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 20 November 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug (Starship Troopers)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article (outside primary sources) on fictional concept. The topic could be salvaged, perhaps, if rewritten using sources on Heinlein's political and social analysis, but note that the current article doesn't touch upon those topics at all. It is pure fancruft, describing fictional aliens without any serious attempt to provide a social or literaly analysis of the concept. As such, there's precious little content to salvage for encyclopedia, through we may want to ping http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which could use this content. CC editors who expressed interest in this topic before: User:DGG, User:Wellspring, User:Noclevername, User:TheMightyShoeHorn _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination acknowledges that the topic could be salvaged and AFD is not cleanup. See our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. It can be salvaged - by rewriting it from grounds up, not keeping anything but few unreferenced generic sentences in the lead. As written, this fails GNG. Check our deletion criteria. That something may be saved, if it was written differently, doesn't mean we cannot delete the present, unreferenced, unnotable, mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NNC and WP:NRV, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.". Note also that, per WP:V, citations are only expected for "quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine. The main content of the article is our original text, not the citations to external sources. Where fictional material is readily available, as in this case, detailed citations are otiose and that's why editors commonly don't bother to add them. Deletion on such grounds is disruptive because it obstructs article improvement and wastes time upon unproductive discussions such as this. Warden (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited information into Starship Troopers and the other works of fiction discussed. The Bugs in Heinlein's book are pretty much standard sci-fi enemy aliens; the book's really about the humans. The versions of Bugs in the other, much less important--they don't read 'em in West Point, works can be discussed in their articles; and the differences between each and the original also there. I object to an article which puts all versions of Bugs together on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:Fancruft.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article on S.T. explains, the reason these are on of the standard types of sci fi aliens, is that these were the prototype, the original back in 1959 that was widely copied and adapted . As they occur in all the works, they need a separate article , and since they're discussed in all work about he novel , there's enough information. What might more realistically be considered fancruft would be separate articles on each individual caste of them==that's the sort of material to go in the Wikia. This is just a summary, and therefore appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DGG: I think this is an excellent point why this article "could be useful if rewritten". Because as it stands, it's pure funcruft about fictional aliens (purely descriptive), without any discussion of the impact this concept had on a wider culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not an expert on this subject, but actually that's why I think we should keep this. I only found myself noticing that this debate was going on because I was trying to find out something about Juan Rico, who's the protagonist of Starship Troopers. Of course I started clicking through to other articles about the book/film series, and I found this article. Is it something that I'm particularly interested in? No. I certainly don't play any of the various computer games that contain these various "bugs", but if I were such a player I'd really appreciate this article. Right now my own little task on Wikipedia is tidying up articles about villages in Burkina Faso. I'm pretty sure that not many people care about this, but for the few people who do consult Wikipedia on Mangodara Department it's helpful information. In the same way, this article about "bugs" is what I think is called "domain specialist" information: 99% of the people on the planet don't care about this, but for the 1% who do it's probably very useful. It's also useful to keep the information on a separate page, because that way it doesn't clutter up the main Starship Troopers article with stuff that most readers would probably not need. The thing is, one day I (or anyone else) might suddenly decide to take an interest in "bugs", and if I (or they) do Wikipedia will be the first place we'll look for information. If we had a Wikipedia that only contained things that I, or even all the people in this debate, currently thought were important, we'd have a much diminished project, and I'd rather not have that. I hope this is OK. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:RomanSpa: I appreciate your thought, but - try again. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful why your current argument, as I see it, is not valid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Piotrus: Sorry for phrasing this wrongly. I'm basically just an ordinary editor, so I may not have phrased things right. What I meant was that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's a really big one. It's like we're really a whole bunch of specialist encyclopedias: you can start by reading the main article about something, but then if you get interested you don't have to go away and find a separate encyclopedia just about that subject, you can sort of "drill down" (I think that's the phrase) to get more and more depth. In some areas we can "drill down" a really long way (e.g. battleships, Star Trek): Wikipedia is already a great specialist encyclopedia for those subjects, if you need it to be. In other areas we can't do this yet, but as time goes by we will improve in these areas. This article should stay because an expert in the adaptation of Heinlein's work to different media would regard the way that bugs are differently portrayed in these media as an important issue. Exactly how the "bugs" differ in different books and films is certainly specialist knowledge (in the same way that the different Starship Enterprises are specialist knowledge - a Star Trek expert needs this information and would regard it as significant, but most people wouldn't), but to a "domain specialist" this is significant and notable information, and that's why the article should stay. RomanSpa (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others but purge fancruft. The book American Science Fiction and the Cold War: Literature and Film has a good passage for this topic: "The main enemy is the Bugs whose organisation resembles that of ants, the 'ultimate dictatorship of the hive'... They embody a 'total communism' presided over by bug 'commissars'. In short the Bugs represent the perceived characteristics of Soviet Communism transposed, after a defeat of the 'Chinese Hegemony' in the novel's future history, on to an alien species." Also, the Futures journal article "Bug Planet: Frontier Myth in Starship Troopers" states, "Heinlein and Verhoeven's construction of the Bugs... is at the centre of this machine's functioning: despite their blatant Otherness, despite the fact that 'they look the way they do' they are far from being 'just stupid insects'. In fact, crucially, 'they co-operate even better than we do', 'don't know how to surrender' and are thus a lethal enemy, exhibiting a frightful intelligence, and Heinlein intimates, the expansionist urges intrinsic to any successful race... The machine is thus granted a teleological grounding: it must be thus because it can only be thus: without violent expansionism, the human race would be annihilated, not by its own self-destructive 'closed world' frustrations, but by the territorial ambitions of the alien Other." This is most definitely a viable topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Erik. Nice finds, would you care to add those to the article? If a section on cultural impact, using reliable sources like this, is added, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that material is already in Starship Troopers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article titled Insect-like alien be possible? That would make more sense to me. Rather than saying all the others are really Heinlein's, as this article, not intentionally, suggests. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that title is better? I think the current title indicates that it is the alien species in the Starship Troopers media. "Insect-like alien" is vague, and I'm not sure if we have the sources to have that kind of more general scope. Sources are more likely to exist in the context of Starship Troopers. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people here have suggested that insect-like aliens are a major trope in science fiction, which a quick WP search showed existed before Heinlein. I expect this article to be kept, and really have no problem with that. Interested readers might also check out Extraterrestrials in fiction, which could be improved and expanded quite a bit. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erik's finds of RS'ed commentary showing the topic meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 November 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG as written. Little in the text suggests importance outside the fictional setting, and two refs of dubious reliability are 404 anyway. CC editors who expressed interest in this article before: User:DGG, User:Wellspring, User:Kross _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has great notability. See, for example, Masculinity in Fiction and Film: Representing Men in Popular Genres, 1945-2000; Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary Agenda-setting in American and British Speculative Fiction; Literature After Globalization: Textuality, Technology and the Nation-State. See also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide page numbers and quotations from those works that prove they discuss this concept? Because the very existence of those books, neither of which mentions this topic in the name, is not proof of anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, per WP:BEFORE, such work is your responsibility: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The search links above will assist you in this now but you may need to tweak the search keywords for the best result. Warden (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @User:Colonel Warden: My search didn't show anything that looked significant. If you disagree, I ask you again - please provide qutations and page numbers (and then add those relevant content to the article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What search did you do? If you provide details, I can perhaps show you where you're going wrong. Warden (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited information into Starship Troopers and the other works of fiction discussed. Heinlein's book is about the Mobile Infantry, and beyond that about military culture, tactics, and values. The versions of MI in the other, much less important--they don't read 'em in West Point, works can be discussed in their articles; and the differences between each and the original also there. I object to an article which puts all versions of MI together on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:Fancruft. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do occur in all the works, though the book is the more important. There is enough commonality that they can be discussed together. The comparison of how the different works handle them can be done without OR, as there are sources What I would object to on the grounds of fancruft. is articles that put each version in a separate article o (Fancruft of course is a WP word meaning MoreDetailThanIAmInterestedIn, and is so subjective that it's really not an argument. In many cases we can if we really try find sufficient RS support for a great deal more detail than almost anyone here would like to include, so the only way we keep it out under the GNG is by interpreting RS in such a way as to call whatever is available in not reliable, or, if it unquestionably reliable, as an academic book would be, indiscriminate because it discusses all the elements of the work. . We would do much better to find some sort of rule for how much detail to use in the different classes of fiction, based both on the amount of material available and the importance of the fiction. (such a proposal by another ed. failed a few years ago because those who didn't like it prevented consensus by raising objections over each possible demarcation points, instead of just saying to leave it to judgment in the individual case DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make reasonable points. I really think the overall topic of MI across all works is a product of original research, even if sources compare each version to the original. Putting them together is OR. I kind of see fancruft as more like something addressed only to serious fans and/or players of the work in question, not so much about the amount of detail. And BTW I also would argue against an article solely on Heinlein's MI saying that we don't need two articles one starting: "Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about the Mobile Infantry, a fictional future elite military force." znd the other: "The Mobile Infantry is a fictional future elite military force which is the subject of Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel Starship Troopers." They are really the same thing, in effect here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DGG: Interesting, but we really need reliable source to prove that this concept is notable. At present the article has nada, and nothing specific has been presented here (as in: no quotations, no page numbers, no works that discuss it clearly in title). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really about lack of sources. To me it's more about people not being able to understand that there is a difference between one of the most important books of the Twentieth Century and some movie, TV show, or video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand it, Heinlein's conception of the Mobile Infantry was a highly influential early description of use of a Powered exoskeleton in warfare. Many of the references that discuss such new "battlesuits" directly mention the Mobile Infantry suits in Heinlein's novel. For example: http://voices.yahoo.com/army-developing-super-combat-suit-special-12358323.html , http://www.hammock.com/marines-meet-the-hulc/ . If other people are making such references in their everyday lives, I think we should have an article that explains what they are. RomanSpa (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:RomanSpa: Interesting, but I don't think those are reliable sources. If you could confirm what you are saying with reliable sources, it would be very helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reduce the article to Stub-class due to most of the content being unreferenced fancruft. Coverage about the mobile infantry from Starship Troopers needs to be from thematic analysis. For example, The Science Fiction Handbook states, "Rico... is assigned to the mobile infantry, which many consider a lowly post, but which the text [Starship Troopers] presents as the heart of the military and as the branch of the military in which service is the most honorable of all." It also mentions that in the film, women are part of the mobile infantry and are treated as equal to men (whereas in Heinlein's book it is just men). This source and the ones mentioned above (especially Rumors of War and Infernal Machines) can be used for this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Erik: could you add that to the article? Those seem like interesting sources that could contribute to us being able to keep this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to add some content after the AfD has passed. Per WP:NNC, there is general agreement that this topic and Bug (Starship Troopers) are notable regardless of the shape of their articles. There is no obligation to improve the articles to argue for keeping in AfDs, though it can be done to demonstrate an article's viability to an initial consensus of deleting it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Argument for profoundly weak, given the early sci fi infantry concept that has lived on in other media. In addition to the books and movies, Starship Troopers spawned an Avalon-Hill bookcase game that dealt with the concept and tactical commentary--I'll see if I can dig it up later and find a quote or two. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Jclemens: Please do, proof that such source exist and are reliable is what is needed for us to keep that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 21 November 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politically related deaths of Iranians[edit]

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

No reliable sources for this information , May be also original research »» Ibrahim.ID 02:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The opening line of "Deaths of many Iranians have generated political controversy" is a bad start, then it goes downhill fast. Def. WP:OR and I'm sure there's some other WP:NOT policies breached here too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, OR list of problematic notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons articulated above Kabirat (talk) 08:20, 21 November 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) 08:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John McGranaghan[edit]

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

The subjects notability is unimportant. The subjects notability exists over a single crime that he didn't commit nor was a part of. The article is essentially a short rewrite of the two obituaries that it is sourced to. I fail to see any importance in this stub. Keegan (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give me time, Cyberbot! I got distracted :P Keegan (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd also note that this article is covered under BLP, the recently dead. Keegan (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed this a few weeks ago. I think it might be a case of mistaken identity, but either way there is a complete dearth of information about this person out there. I'd expect at least a few books by now, but what there is is minimal at best. I don't think this meets WP:GNG even remotely, and I can't see where we would redirect it either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRIMINAL. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. John Reaves 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A release on appeal after 10 years might indicate that this was a notorious case of a miscarriage of justice. I do not recall the case, but that might make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources to establish notability or justify inclusion per WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:30, 26 November 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 no consensus. A discussion about a merger may be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Acupuncture Trials[edit]

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

There is insufficient depth and breadth of secondary coverage to warrant a standalone article on this topic (a number of clinical trials on acupuncture in the 2000s). After deletion, a mention of them might be considered for the main acupuncture article, though with other later trials being cited there it is not clear if they would even deserve a mention. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about 3 very large RCTs which were instigated at the behest of a number of German statutory health insurances. They are notable because on the basis of their result (among other), the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to reimburse acupuncture treatment for low back pain and knee pain. We have one reliable secondary source and three reliable primary sources here. There also is an article about this at the German Wikipedia since ages... User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru are trying to take this article apart because of anti-acupuncture bias. They already deleted most of the article on the grounds that the sources were not reliable (the primary ones because they are primary, the secondary one - from the Federal Joint Committee itself - because it allegedly was not independent), without consensus. I've appealed to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard already, but the case is still pending. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is a pitful stub, but it shows reliable refs, and Google Book search for "German Acupuncture Trials" gives a number of reliably looking hits. I think the topic could be expanded beyond a stub, and likely has inherent notability. German speakers may be able to comment on German sources. Ping me if there are any major developments and I can revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Removing 90% of referenced article's content, and then AfD-ing it, is problematic enough that a user conduct discussion may be merited somewhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. petrarchan47 t c 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, because the article is a WP:COATHOOK for acupuncture promoters. It could be rewritten as something else, but that would require a buttload more reliable secondary sources and a completely different focus. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both versions of the edit warred article, the stub and the poorly sourced one. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:35,

Keep - It is one of the largest acupuncture clinical trials and the study affected the decisions of a government health organization -A1candidate (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your iVote was marked as Delete in the Stats. petrarchan47 t c 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATHOOK. Secondary sources can be combined into the acupuncture article. If there is independent secondary sources on these trials it can be discussed in a research section of the acupuncture article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy with Blue and Scray's suggestion. However once it is summarized it can likely be merged into a section on "society and culture" in the accupucture article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is notable for its direct consequences in the German health care system and the huge debate it triggered. There's sufficient secondary sourcing. And WP:COATHOOK hardly applies since these trials showed quite clearly that verum and sham acupuncture had the same efficiency - which puts it at odds with the beliefs of Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, Wikipedia is WP:NOT news; if this information is eventually covered by reliable secondary reviews, it will then be incorporated into acunpuncture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reinforce my stance per Bluerasberry, delete and merge the negligible policy content to acupuncture. There is no reason to keep a lot of what most certainly is a medical article because of some press on societal/policy impact. For that, we have WP:MEDMOS#Sections, which allows for a "Society and culture" section in medical articles. Keeping a coatrack will ... keep it a coatrack. What content can be salvaged can be included in the appropriate section at acupuncture. There is unlikely to be more to say on this topic than the policy/societal impact, so the acupuncture article can accommodate that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for true believers in acupuncture. The current version is littered with unimportant details. A brief mention in acupuncture might be warranted if shown to be notable by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the article is kept and once the primary sources are deleted it might be merged into the acupuncture article. We would have to evaluate the article based on secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample evidence of effect on insurance coverage makes it notable; I'm less equipped to judge medical notability, but the NHS reference, for one, suggests it may also be notable in that area. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the "NHS" content had been added to the article in a misleading way. The NHS runs an information service called "NHS Choices" which routinely reacts items of medical news; here it was giving an equivocal response (not the sure "conclusion" as was written in the article). In reality the NHS position comes from guidance published by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, and this draws no more on GERAC than on any other set of evidence. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and incorporate into acupuncture; it's because of the latter/parent topic that the trials are notable. -- Scray (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Keep based on User:Bluerasberry's formulation below (i.e. remove inadequately-sourced medical content, and focus on sociopolitical impact of the trials, where their notability rests). -- Scray (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is currently a massive WP:FRINGE failure by relegating criticism to the bottom of the article. It does also appear to be overly detailed. WP:FRINGE says we need to appropriately marginalise pseudoscience, so delete is my view. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of any scientific merit of the study, the impact on German insurance policy appears to be notable and well-documented. Balance issues should be dealt with on the article talkpage, not AfD. --Carnildo (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article does need changes. It should be kept because these clinical trials are notable - the Spiegel and Focus articles are reliable sources and supplemented by others which also seem to be good. This article should not have coverage of acupuncture or opinions on acupuncture - it should only talk about the results of this trial and how those results have been used to influence policy in Germany. This is not a medical article - rather this is an article about a clinical trial and its impact on society and politics. All information without a citation should be removed. Content which is cited only to the report of the research study itself or other primary sources should be removed. Other people in this RfD claim that this article makes statements about acupuncture which are unrelated to this study - if those are here then they should be removed, but I do not see them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry wrote: "Content which is cited only to the report of the research study itself or other primary sources should be removed." ← yes, but does that leave us with any more than some contemporary news reports/reaction and a few mentions subsequently? I fear not - not enough for a standalone article anyway ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, if it does, then that is sufficient. The articles in Spiegel and Focus are enough to carry this because those are major publications talking about a topic of public interest. There are more sources besides those. This is a project which has been in the news repeatedly for more than five years, has been promoted by multiple organizations which heavily influence health policy, has affected millions of people, and which has consumed 7 million euros for the project and many more millions in the reaction. Cutting away the primary sources leaves a lot. I have to backtrack about saying no primary sources at all because I reconsidered that Germany might have no equivalent of the United States clinicaltrials.gov to give a third-party opinion about the minimal amount of information which the public ought to have when clinical research is happening in their community. I would want this article and all articles on clinical trials to include study specifications which define the research, but that would not contribute to notability or influence any deletion discussions. If the article is worth keeping then a bit of reference data is worth including, from primary sources or otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry, are you familiar with the "Society and culture" section per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections ? For what reason would the negligible salvageable text about policy not be included in a Society and culture section at acupuncture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a medical topic so medmos does not apply in that way. All the medicine can be stripped out of this article and a major research project remains, and one can still talk about participants, funding, media reactions, and many other things having nothing to do with medical practices. This article should not make medical claims about acupuncture, so medmos guidelines about keeping medical content out of non-medical articles do apply. Users should go to acupuncture to read about the medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is not an article about a medical topic but the current article is a medical article about the trial itself. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article to describe the trial itself. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. Editors think it is okay to use any source they like and continue to ignore policy. The primary sources are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources that do not show it is notable. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The Joint Fed. Committee study is also being used to discuss the trial itself. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Two articles in Spiegel and Focus are not enough to claim this article is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is right. WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard this from another anti-acupuncture editor as well: Acupuncture allegedly is WP:FRINGE - since "WP:FRINGE applies to all Alternative medicine articles on WP by definition" [40]. Without being an acupuncture proponent, I strongly object to this view. I mean, just read the Acupuncture#Pain section: there's over half a dozen meta-reviews there finding evidence that acupuncture is effective. I personally agree that the clinical benefit is too small to bother. But how can you compare this to things like Creationism? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "anti-acupuncture" but I am anti-quack (which is relevant, I suppose). So, you are saying that a medical system that claims to cure a wide variety of human ailments by sticking needles into certain parts of the body to control an undetectable energy called "qi" is not fringe? Seriously .. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are continuing to be dumped all over the article to make medical claims that is unrelated to the impact on society and politics. Blue Rasberry, do you support the primary sources being use to make medical claims? Editors think the article is about the trial itself and not necessarily about "how a clinical trial impacted society". QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QG, the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) is an independent body that decides over which therapies are reimbursable by the statutory health insurances in Germany and which not. It did not set up the GERAC trials or even ask for them. I explained this to you a couple of times already now: [41], [42], [43]. The report they published about the GERAC trials thus is a secondary source - and probably the most important one in this article since based on this report, they decided that acupuncture is reimbursable (in certain conditions). --Mallexikon (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SECONDARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. The dated Joint Fed. Committee report is part of the event because they decided to reimburse acupuncture treatment for low back pain and knee pain. That makes them a primary source because they are part of the event. The low level details about the trial itself are not important because this is not supposed to be a medical article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God damn it! The Federal Joint Committee is the body that approves what new cancer medication will be paid for by the statutory health insurances next year! They are NOT part of GERAC, the just reviewed and evaluated them (together with a couple of other acupuncture trials)! What "event" do you keep mumbling about? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus here that if this article stays, it should focus on the historical event which was the granting of a certain status to acupuncture in Germany which qualified it as eligible for insurance claims. The committee that was central to this decision was a prime participant and the documents it emitted are primary documents. We need secondary sources with independent commentary on what happened. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem in using an independent source other than the Federal Joint Committee regarding information about the FJC's own decisions. But regarding GERAC itself, the FJC's paper constitutes a highly reliable secondary source (a review of several acupuncture trials, actually). Why are you trying to deny this? --Mallexikon (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails WP:MEDRS and cannot be used. (But as has been said by others, there should be no biomedical content in this article anyway). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about Healthcare in Germany. The section about Healthcare in Germany#Regulation can cover how the trial impacted healthcare in Germany. It is redundant to have a separate article about the trials unless you want to keep a Wikipedia:COATHOOK article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of primary sources used in the article to discuss the trial itself. Any attempt to delete any medical information about the trial itself is being restored. So this is not an article about "how a clinical trial impacted society". QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone still questioning the notability of the article? The entire discussion seems to have gone off track and I don't see how this is supposed to be a coatrack article as you claim, since it only describes these studies and the consequences of them. -A1candidate (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a coat rack. Take for example the statement (in Wikipedia's voice, mark you) that the ~~osteoperosis~~ osteoarthritis trial result "amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". This is an out-of-date medical trial being laundered through a non-WP:MEDRS source, in the face of subsequent reliable secondary medical commentary (Howick) which tells us that trials such as these cannot reliably be used to deduce clinically significant results. What we have in this article is a smörgåsbord of bogus health information and POV-pushing; this needs to go. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "osteoarthritis" instead of "osteoperosis"? In any case, the sentence which you're quoting appears to be taken from the results of the trials. Whether these results are out-of-date or not isn't the issue here. -A1candidate (talk)

QED. This article is being used to relay poor-quality biomedical information, which runs counter to Wikipedia's aim to ensure that "biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru - Yes, I confirm, the primary sources used in this article and the information they reference ought to be removed. Alexbrn also raises serious and valid concerns that this article has problems, including these:

the trials' results have been disproven
this information is outdated
medical claims are made here contrary to MEDRS
this article is not NPOV
the article itself is written in a way which does not correctly interpret the sources
primary sources are being used inappropriately
acupuncture itself is not based on a scientifically sound premise
"This article is being used to relay poor-quality biomedical information"

I will grant all of these points. The only counterpoint I have to all of these is that the subject of this article has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources written by authors who are independent of the subject. None of the concerns stated address this article's meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or constitute an exclusion criteria. As A1candidate says, the concerns posed are not addressing the notability of the subject of this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the primary sources are only being used to discuss acupuncture medical information about the trials itself. The current version is definitely a coathook. After the medical information that describes the trial itself is removed, it can be merged into Healthcare in Germany#Regulation and/or acupuncture. It is notable to discuss the outcome of the trials at the Healthcare in Germany article but there is no reason to have duplicate information in a separate article. There is not a decent paragraph about the outcome of the trials in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation. Once the coathook information is removed there may only be left a small paragraph. The result in the end will likely be a merge. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be merged. I propose this:

Settle this deletion discussion.
If it is kept, purge content inappropriate for inclusion into Wikipedia.
If it is kept, then after content is purged, consider the merge.

I feel that content needs to be pulled. I am not sure what the article will look like after that, and I see no reason to try to imagine this before the deletion discussion is settled. The merge would be determined by how much content is here; if what is left would be WP:UNDUE to put anywhere else then it should stay here. If the article is kept then I will be around to clean the mess, and I would also talk by phone or Skype with anyone who wishes to talk to make the cleanup more expedient. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems can be fixed but it will be difficult to purge content inappropriate for the article when there are very determined editors who want to keep the current article as is with all the coathook material. We agree that the possible merge would be determined by how much content is left after the text is summarised. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is going to be determining which sources can be used for what. As it is right now, the strategy of QG and Alexbrn seems to be to impeach as many sources as possible in order to keep the article a stub... In the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GERAC it has been pointed out repeatedly that primary sources are not forbidden in general, but merely need to be used carefully. GQ and Alebrn don't seem to be able to accept this consensus. On top of that, they are stubbornly trying to impeach the Federal Joint Committee report with ever-changing and abstruse arguments (alleging it is primary when it clearly is secondary, alleging it is biased when it clearly is independent, alleging it is too old when WP:MEDDATE clearly doesn't apply). --Mallexikon (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a medical article about the acupuncture trials. You created an unintentional WP:POVFORK. The Federal Joint Committee report is being used to discuss the trial itself. Discussing the details about the trial itself creates a WP:COATHOOK. Mallexikon believes this is a medical article about acupuncture information.

There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles.

See WP:REDUNDANTFORK: "Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt. Check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article is littered with dated sources, original research, text that the failed verification, and unimportant low level details. This is a big mess. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The editor who started the article in 2011 said today: What concerns? And why debate them here? The editor continues to think there are no concerns with the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I merely asked you what concerns you were talking about, and why you start debating them at the RS noticeboard... --Mallexikon (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the German Acupuncture Trials#Overview section is a WP:WEIGHT violation, among other violations. Do you think there is any coatrack information or excessive details in the article? If yes, what specific information do you think should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blue Raspberry. petrarchan47 t c 18:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blue Raspberry. I also have concerns over an editor deleting massive amounts of content, stubbing the article, and then nominating it for AfD. Is that being discussed anywhere? GregJackP Boomer! 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC but it was largely ignored. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic covered by significant sources. Nominator DOESNTLIKEIT. The whole tactic of "let's remove the content and sources and then claim the article doesn't have enough content and sources" was pulled on Monsanto-related articles recently by the usual suspects. It's petty, transparent, and intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With regard to comments by Mallexikon and GregJackP above: note that the article does not appear to have been in a nuked state while or immediately prior to the AfD nomination, as the content was restored 23:35, 19 November 2013‎ and Alexbrn nominated it 06:43, 20 November 2013. There have only been a few much smaller edits since then. Please avoid casting bad faith accusations (although I don't mean that as a ringing endorsement of Alexbrn). I largely agree with Doc James and Sandy above. The reality is that if we dig deep enough, we can have articles on a very large variety of things, but is it really a well-organized way to present information? As editors we need to figure out how to organize our content so that we can make it highly effective, accurate, and useful. We can summarize these trials at the acupuncture and the few people who want to get into the really nitty gritty can drill down by following the sources. For those who might say I just want to remove this coverage of acupuncture, I'll just point out that if I didn't like acupuncture, I might very well want the page to remain. The results suggest that the effectiveness of acupuncture is basically no more than sham acupuncture; there are flavors of sham but in this case the needles were hardly stuck in—meaning that it is almost entirely an expectancy effect. II | (t - c) 07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it was in the nuked stated when I AfD'd it - but I'm now confused as I see only 3 edits for the 19th Nov, and none are at 23:35. However the assumption of bad faith from editors who should know better is disappointing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was nuked on 20-Nov at 6:19 [44], then nominated for deletion at 6:43 [45]. I reverted the nukeandpave at 7:00 [46]. QuackGuru nuked the article again at 7:06 [47]. When I reverted again [48], Alexbrn reverted once more and politely informed me that edit warring may lead to a block [49]. When I complained at AN/I about the nuking of sourced material, Alexbrn's response was "I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ..." [50]. Anyway, judging from the lack of feedback at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC I can only conclude that his behavior is deemed acceptable. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not acceptable at all, and if this was brought to arbcom, they would call it disruptive and tendentious. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive? You will have noticed the text displayed above the edit box you used to enter your text: "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". However, since you raise this .... I appreciate you have some expertise on Wikipedia's sanctions, having been on the receiving end yourself for your personalized attacks on other editors (which still appears to be unfortunately an issue) - but it would be a foolish person indeed who would predict how Arbcom would react to any given situation. This article was full of poorly-sourced and undue medical and quasi-medical content that fell afoul of WP's policies and guidelines and my removal of it improved Wikipedia. We're going to get back to that improved state, but it's just we're now going the "long way round" by going through AfD: such are the ways of consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, disruptive, as in, there is a rough consensus that you have disrupted yet another article topic by engaging in the same duplicitous tactics as previously noted in the Monsanto-related topic area. This is not a coincidence, and if arbcom was able to see the entire pattern of behavior by you and the usual suspects, they would agree with me. You aren't fooling anyone. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - it's a devastating case, falling short only in not being backed by facts. AFAIR I have never nominated any Monsanto article for deletion nor stubbed any. Clue: WP:TINC. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it isn't hard to find a tendentious edit at March Against Monsanto, like this one. I have seen nothing but this type of editing from you, and am very concerned by this. Though you may not have nominated the article for deletion, you voted for it, saying "Delete and merge core content to Genetically modified food controversies. While the topic is notable enough for a section in a larger topic, the lack (?)of multiple high-quality sourcing does not justify a standalone article, and in fact risks erecting a coatrack for pro- and contra- POVs ... which is what we have seen in the edit history here." Alexbrn 6 August 2013 petrarchan47 t c 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The extensive discussion of the methodology of the trials makes this an article subject to MEDRS. Then that the trials have been discredited would need inclusion etc. The level of notability warrants only some mention in the Healthcare in Germany article as separate edit not a merge. This article would deteriorate into a discussion of methodology for scientific medical studies. If someone can point to substantial discussion of the impact of these trials in multiple quality RS my opinion might changed, but then the article would need a great deal of editing, which IMO would lead to it being a subject better included in Healthcare in Germany. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"MEDRS" is a content guideline; nothing is "subject" to it. Please stop elevating guidelines to policies. If you would like to make it a policy, then follow the procedure. The level of notability is such that the German article calls it "the world's largest prospective, randomized study on the efficacy of acupuncture". It has also been called the most influential and controversial study of its kind. The number of sources on this topic is numerous. It's bizarre to see editors questioning this over and over again. Finally, the quality of a notable article does not lend any weight towards deletion, and is an argument to avoid. The bad arguments in favor of deletion here seem to disappear into nothing when you take a closer look. It's just IDONTLIKEIT covered in treacle. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented convincing arguments supported by more in depth study of the article. I am changing my vote to Keep. There is adequate support for notability. In response: there is wide consensus on MEDRS, my apologies for phrasing that implied it was a policy. When consensus supports following a guideline in an article it is appropriate to follow it for that article. As suggested I will look into having MEDRS become a policy. You are correct a notable article that needs improvement should be improved not AfD'd. This article needs substantial editing but that is a topic for its talk page. Thank you for your input (not so much for your tone). - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 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. The rationales given by the deletion supporters here seem pretty strong. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis[edit]

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

Propaganda for pseudoscience. Even the article admits there is no evidence for the theory. It is beyond my ability to rewrite, there is possibly enough notability for a short article, but it would be necessary to start over, presenting it properly in terms of our pseudoscience policies., and in any case the unacceptable speculation should be removed from the history. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hypothesis of the link between XO and atheroschlerosis is notable - see Xanthine oxidase in homogenized cow's milk and Oster's hypothesis: a review. The theory doesn't seem to have panned out but this is the normal scientific method, not pseudoscience. If the article needs work then this is a matter of normal editing. Deletion would be disruptive to this, removing the edit history and contents in an indiscriminate way. If the nominator feels himself unable to write upon the topic, he should please not presume to dismiss it. Note that homogenized milk doesn't even exist as a proper page and just redirects to a poor general article about homogenization. But there's a little bit about the topic at milk#Creaming_and_homogenization and so an obvious alternative to deletion is a redirect to that section. How hard is that? Warden (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is a mess, and it's hard to see how to rescue it. The references are of generally low-quality or are used in a manner that represents synthesis; the reference formatting is wrong as well. A huge effort would be needed to extract the small amount of encyclopedic content from the rest, and refactor to represent scientific consensus. -- Scray (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note overlapping content in United States raw milk debate#Homogenization. -- Scray (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the long list of references, this article does not appear to pass our requirement for a medical article. It appears to be a mass of speculation, synthesis, and references to non-reliable sources. Key observation: the section "Diseases linked to XO" is completely unsourced. Also: the source cited above by Colonel Warden concludes "Compared with present knowledge, this theory gives little evidence only." (translated from German) This is not something we should have an article on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Division of Nutrition, Bureau of Foods, US Food and Drug Administration commissioned the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to review the XO theory based on available evidence, in the year 1975. The comprehensive report, number 223-75-2090, views the XO theory as a significant topic worthy of further investigation considering the possible, broad significance of biologically available XO in homogenized, cow’s milk on the health of the US population.

Since then, despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven. In fact, quite to the contrary, diverse evidence in support of it has coalesced even without the participation of the pioneers who introduced it. A list of desired research directions is included in the Federation report. From among the suggested, 19 directions a good number have been pursued and they largely support the XO theory. The report states:

“Further research should include: “Investigation of the possible absorption of large molecular weight proteins such as xanthine oxidase from the gastrointestinal tract during the life of the animal (confirmed - Zikakis, 1990) and whether or not this process resembles that of the neonate;

“In human subjects, confirmation of the existence of immune-specific circulating antibodies to ingested bovine milk xanthine oxidase. (IgM antibodies to bovine XO have been confirmed by no less than three independent research groups - see references 72-77 in the article). If confirmation proves successful, investigation should be extended to find possible epidemiologic correlates for atherosclerosis (extensive epidemiological evidence linking bovine XO to atherosclerosis exists in the literature).

“Measurement of xanthine oxidase in normal and atherosclerotic human arterial intimal and subintimal layers and in normal and ischemic myocardium (determined, Atherosclerosis, 2003), with differentiation between exogenous and endogenous XO (not determined).

“Using a source-specific method of identification, establishment of or ruling out the presence of ectopically deposited bovine milk xanthine oxidase in arterial and myocardial tissues of human milk consumers (done, Oster, et al, 1973).

“Confirmation of reports of changes in plasmalogen (phosphatidylethanolamine) content of atherosclerotic arteries and ischemic myocardium (such changes have been demonstrated not only in arteries and heart muscle but also in human erythrocytes, the myelin sheathes of nerves and in brain - MS and Alzheimer’s).

“Establishment of the occurrence and biologic significance of phospholipase A and vinyl etherase in normal and diseased human cardiovascular tissues. (high lipoprotein PLA2 activity has been shown to imply a worse CV prognosis, Rossi, et al, 2012).

“Confirmation that plasmals are found in vivo in normal human cardiovascular tissues, using a reliable method of detection. (today, the presence of plasmals, phosphotidylethanolamine, in cardiovascular tissues is a textbook understanding with numerous detection methods in existence).

“Better understandings of the biosynthesis and degradation of plasmalogens (phosphatidylethanolamine, PE) and proof of xanthine oxidase interaction with plasmalogens, particularly, a demonstration that xanthine oxidase catalyzes the oxidation of plasmals in vivo. (XO oxidation of plasma substrate is now a well understood reaction. Of late, even a correlation between a PE decrease and a XO increase in autism has been noted, Chauhan 2006).

Detractors in the present talk page do not base criticism on research that might disprove the XO theory. They seem to be in a rush to do away with it based on stylistic, formatting and editing considerations, raising questions over their objectivity and/or their lack of awareness of the topic’s significance. XO is an established generator of ROS and at the center of inflammation pathology, the prime link between most chronic and life-threatening diseases as well as the key to their remedy.

As the article creator, I believe time should be granted to edit the article to everyone’s satisfaction, consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.Ambassador III (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Ambassador III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

About your comment that "despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven": In the first place, the reports which have failed to find evidence for this supposed link are not "internet claims"; they are peer-reviewed published articles.[51] More importantly, it is not Wikipedia's policy to publish an article about every medical theory that "has not been disproven"; given the difficulty of proving a negative, that would leave the door open to almost anything. Rather, Wikipedia's medical articles have to meet the standard that "the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." This article fails that standard. Editing or rewriting will not change that. About your request for "time", it appears that you have been working on this article, at AfC and in articlespace, since January 2012 - almost two years. That's quite a bit of time already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay going through the lead.

Ref 1 [52] is a primary source and does not support the text in question

Ref 2 [53] does not mention the ingestion of homogenized milk. It thus does not appear to address the subject of the article.

Red 3 [54] is primary research and the full paper does not mention homogenized milk or atherosclerosis

Red 4 is a popular press book [55] which appears to be pushing a fringe position
Ref 5 [56] is a letter from 1977. No a reliable source. And there are reliable sources that find the folic acid does not affect CVD risk (may decrease stock) [57]

Delete per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews from 1983 does not an article make [58]. What we have is more or less WP:OR / Fringe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 28 November 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Things I Hate About Me[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK. the only award won is not a major one "Kathleen Mitchell Award for Excellence in Young Adult Writing 2008". LibStar (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it were just the award then the notability might be shaky since I'm not certain how big this award really is. Most awards aren't, regardless of how long they've been running. At most they can contribute towards notability but not give absolute notability. Luckily I was able to dig up some reviews for the book from various places such as some peer reviewed journals. Altogether I think that there's just enough to merit a keep. I'm actually a little surprised at how hard it was to find some of these sources given how much coverage the author herself has received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79. Perhaps not the author's most notable work, but notable enough. For the record, I found another brief review at Publishers Weekly[59]; and GNews also turns up a couple of suggestive paywalled snippets: a review in March 22, 2009 Denver Post, and a December 31, 2009 New York Post article that appears to make a connection between this book and a TV series called "What I Hate About Me". --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 20 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benitec Biopharma[edit]

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

They are probably notable, but I can not figure out how to rewrite it to remove the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is already being in the pipeline and so a rewrite can incorporated if guidance is given. For example, can an example sentence of what is not acceptable be provided? Can another company Wikipedia page be suggested to demonstrate the difference?

Just as background, when originally composing/submitting the article, other company Wikipedia pages were reviewed in order to understand what could and could not be said, and further advice was sought from the Wikipedia community. All content is referenced to as many independent sources as possible. The submission was approved. The content has not been altered since. Snrichards (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least stubify. Much of the information is just completely unnecessary including the speaking tour of the CEO, a list of unexplained patents and details about a bunch of obviously, individually non-notable programs. I'm inclined to agree that the company itself might pass WP:CORPDEPTH but we'd need a machete to hack through the untended backyard that is promo-spam here. The "submission" was "approved" by a single editor, not the broader community. I'm not sure he was necessarily wrong to pass it through AFC but that doesn't mean its existence here cannot be challenged thereafter. Stalwart111 07:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue is not how the article is written, but whether the company is notable. My impression is that it does not meet WP:CORP. I found a few mentions in minor publications [60] [61], but nothing significant. Otherwise just the usual information about the stock price (it is publicly traded, which often gives notability, but it's a penny stock and draws no significant coverage in financial circles). --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Benitec holds patents on a unique method of RNA interference that can modify the outcomes of genetically caused diseases and are participating in FDA approved clinical trials. They are collaborating with well-known medical institutions and private companies world wide testing the efficacy of therapies, which will improve the lives of millions. Their technologies are well explained on their web site. The links to their web site on the Wikipedia page were misspelled (broken) which drew my interest to this page. The low share price, characterized as "penny stock" by one editor, is not significant. Many hi-tech companies that changed the world in the past 30-40 years started with low share prices and were initially marginally profitable because they were unknown. For example, companies in the field of RNA interference which have recently experienced rapid price increases are Alnylam (ALNY) and Tekmira (TKMR).SonuT (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those things make this company notable how? Stalwart111 11:20, 28 November 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. L Faraone 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rain dance (music genre)[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd with reason "Unverified, no suggestion here or on the internetz that this is a notable genre." PROD was removed by the author without explanation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Maybe a WP:NEO? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. It is a difficult term to search for, but nothing turns up that support the contention that this is a significant genre.--SabreBD (talk) 20:00, 27 November 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. L Faraone 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot[edit]

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

Everything is wrong with this article, starting with the name. The article is not about "Cultural depictions of T.S. Eliot". It's about constructing an indiscriminate collection of every time that some snippet of dialogue or book or movie title or lyric was or sounds like or reminds some editor or another of Eliot, or something Eliot wrote, or something that sounds similar to something that Eliot wrote. Trivia magnet loaded with original research. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously Eliot is a very important figure in modern culture, with whom many other things are connected. However this article seems to go beyond the usual "in popular culture" article (which I guess tells us something about how someone or something is perceived by the population) to the area of WP:Original research. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's name would indicate that this should be an essay on the legacy of Eliot that is best served at the Eliot article in a well-sourced 2-3 paragraph summary with encyclopaedic examples. This isn't an article and definitely isn't the article it should be. It's a crufty and random list of trivia regarding people who seem to think it confers intelligence and gravitas on them and their mediocre work by quoting Eliot or knowing of Eliot. 95% allusions have no substance other than that rationale. "Artist X quoted Eliot" is not encyclopedic and offers no substantive insight on the legacy of Eliot or his work. Get rid of this shit per WP:HTRIVIA. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of other, lesser artists' vapid and vacuous misquoting and namedropping of famous men.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser artists like Nabokov, Waugh, Lessing, Achebe, William Burroughs, Anthony Burgess, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison? No-talent plagiarists the lot of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.1[edit]

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

WP:Notability. Individual race report of a third tier semi-amateur series is a long way below notability standards for motor racing. No attempt at establishing the events notability has been made. The data is also essentially copied from a single source, borderline plagarism, and that source is a statistics website with no content beyond the race result. One of a number of such race reports nominated here. WP:NOTSTATS WP:COPYRIGHT? I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, F3 is well below the level at which a racing series should have individual round reports. WP:GNG failure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per Falcadore & The Bushranger. Craig (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Falcadore et The Bushranger -Drdisque (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- At this level it should be sufficient to have one article on each season, not one on each race. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 24 November 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.