Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Dungannon#Schools. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laghey Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per nom to Dungannon per long-standing convention. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to per established consensus for non-notable primary schools as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2014 (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. Regarding the merge !vote, a discussion of such can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone EP[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The Album is notable, but not the EP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in three sources, all of which came up on the first page of Google: Louder Than the Music, Indie Vision Music, and Louder Than the Music.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the first two sources are reviews of the EP, and the last source a news article about the EP. I'm not opposed to the merger presented below, but I think two independent reviews is enough to satisfy basic notability concerns.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge first change Cornerstone (Hillsong Album) to Cornerstone (Hillsong) and place at the end. The excessive content there has no relation to the minimal content at: https://hillsong.com/store/products/music/hillsong-worship/cornerstone/ It is a liberty and they can sort it out. Gregkaye (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "It is a liberty and the can sort it out"?--¿3family6 _contribs 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it passes WP:GNG just by being reviewed by Indie Vision Music and Louder Than the Music.HotHat (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One review? Does not help it pass the bar of multiple. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - HotHat mentioned TWO reviews, Walter.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes. I saw only one link. Three is the usual threshold though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is not spelled out in the Notability guidelines. Even two would satisfy the bare minimum of the guidelines, and definitely would be enough include the EP with the studio album article.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up on indenting correctly.

WP:GNG indicates, "there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Here "multiple" is usually interpreted as two or more, depending on quality (see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 52#What is "multiple" sources? among others). The quality of http://www.indievisionmusic.com/2012/06/25/hillsong-live-cornerstone-ep/ is good while http://www.louderthanthemusic.com/document.php?id=3117 is not. It's a brief review without an author. Do you honestly think that's a good and reliable source? The fact that only the first of four paragraphs discusses the EP makes it even more poor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the news item, this is the review.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per two or more independent reviews and HotHat & 3family6's excellent research.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2014 (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. I see a plausible argument here that this article could gain from being renamed Eurotech Universities. Shii (tock) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technologist (magazine)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason: "New magazine, too young to have become notable yet. Article creation vastly premature". Article dePRODded with reason "Article about a magazine that will have some importance and about the Eurotech Universities alliance, which deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia". "Will have some importance" violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. "Deserve to be mentioned": being deserving is not a criterion for notability. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Yo should not base your request on quotations from me but on the actual importance of the magazine and academic network. It is wrong that the article has not independent sources, although it has only two of them so far. This article is also about a university network that meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability as well. However, upon request, the article could be renamed "Eurotech Universities". Chaudeau (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

At this point, I don't see any evidence for notability of the consortium either. Obviously, the individual universities themselves are notable, but that doesn't mean that any organization they belong to automatically becomes notable, too (WP:NOTINHERITED). Apart from that, I don't see any in-depth coverage of the magazine in independent sources (of course, it's name makes searching for sources not easier). Coverage is what is needed to meet WP:GNG, not perceived importance, whether actual or perceived. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. I believe it is in WP's interest to have a very, very relaxed approach towards the notability of articles dealing with publications apt to be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. That means both academic journals and quasi-journals like this. When a journal is cited, a truly excellent encyclopedia should have the capacity to give some quick minimal explanation of that source for a reader seeking to verify information... This is a really good example of where WP:IAR (use common sense rather than rigidly embracing rules) should be leaned upon... Carrite (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning we are going to use our personal judgment rather than GNG or NMAGAZINES. Unless you also want to include predatory journals... --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Randykitty, this has nothing to do with predatory journals. Etechdin (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. If we want to keep trash like predatory journals out, we need criteria. Also, many publications appear and shortly thereafter disappear without leaving much if any trace at all. Do we really want articles on those things? Of course not. I'm not saying we should apply GNG to the letter on this kind of publications (although you should realize that there are many editors here who feel that we should do exactly that and not make any exception), but we need a minimal standard. This magazine is simply to young to even make a minimal standard. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A journal that is published in three languages and 20 countries is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I have a large family in 25 countries speaking 6 different languages. Does this mean that our family magazine is now notable, too? Can you tell me what policy this !vote is based on? --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2014 (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) 06:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly-by Radio[edit]

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

Band whose article cites no reliably sourced evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC at all; the only source that exists here is the website of an organization that the band endorses, thus not an independent source. I initially speedied this A7, but then changed my mind because it turned out the article has existed in this form since 2010. It's still a delete if it can't be sourced better than this, however. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a local write-up, but I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 22:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found many directory listings for this band, but no coverage that would help further to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless some improved sourcing is forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:16, 25 June 2014 (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. I'm not sure why this was relisted a day after I relisted it so I'm counting 7 days from the 24th of June. I see no consensus to delete and a consensus that the subject passes the notability criteria, and to leave the article for the time being to see if better sourcing can be found. If it turns out it cannot, then there should be no prejudice against a further nomination. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Watson (British musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. What looks like a reasonable bunch of references prove (when they are online refs) to briefly mention him in the context of somebody else's work. TheLongTone (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of the sources truly stink, but his association with notable bands, so he might be notable. I'm unsure on this one. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Keep. I can see why some of the references might not make the grade, and so maybe this article needs a little cleaning up, but the fact remains that Watson is a record producer of note. He has produced some fairly well known and critically acclaimed records in the UK, including Paul Wassif's album, which features Eric Clapton and the late Bert Jansch, who sadly died shortly after the record was completed, making it i believe the last record he ever played on. Herbie keys (talk) 3:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have no idea why a delete tag would be applied without a request for references. Gregkaye (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is true that he is a notable record producer and has in fact done work that would be declared notable. I think we should tag the article for sourcing and see if editors can bring the article up to standard. I am an entertainment historian and I am very familiar with the background of this, but it would indeed fall under original research. However, I am not sure this nomination qualifies for a deletion due to lack of notability.--Canyouhearmenow 01:42, 2 July 2014 (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) 06:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bafilo[edit]

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

Not notable, lack of sources Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A skirmish at best. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The detail and source on the page had been copied here Battle of Chra (Peripheral operations)Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no parallel french or german article. There is a place called Bafilo in Kara Region, Togo and French/German versions of Kara make no mention of the battle. Gregkaye (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't find much worthy of note.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any formalities to complete?Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Gordon South[edit]

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

I cannot find evidence of significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Tchaliburton. This article fails. Steam5 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly vanity as the user no other contributions. MiracleMat (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. --Rob (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2014 (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. I'm going to close this per SNOW; no one but the nominator argues for deletion. I'm also going to suggest a bunch of things, since I am a moralist. a. Evil Doctor, please no appeals to manhood--it's sexist. b. PUHLEASE y'all, fight your battles elsewhere or, better yet, don't fight battles at all. c. No, not SPEEDY keep. You ALL should, as long as possible, assume good faith. A may well think of B as stubborn, idiotic, unfamiliar with guidelines, a dumb cheesehead, an illiterate cowherd, but I know (since I know you all) that you know that the other party is not out to disrupt the project. So take it easy. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Karel V[edit]

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

Strange combination of advertising, Grand Restaurant Karel V and Duitse Huis. No need for this combination. The Banner talk 20:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are sufficient independent notable sources surrounding this hotel. It's not unusual for a hotel to be built in an interesting building, or to have a good restaurant, but an article covering that seems appropriate. I'm not sure which of the criteria for deletion this is being based on: perhaps you could outline your opposition to the article based on the relevant guidelines? - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the hotel is so noteworthy that even the Dutch Wikipedia, its "home" Wikipedia, has no article about it. But that Wikipedia does have articles about Duitse Huis and Grand Restaurant Karel V. The Banner talk 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it possibly be that Dutch Wiki isn't as good as Eng Wiki? Given it only has about 20% the number of pages, it's not too surprising. Despite all that, we have lots of articles (and excellent ones too) about other nations that are not on those nations' wikis. I really wouldn't compare the two. Back to the original point: do you have anything to offer based on the relevant policies etc? - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, where is you statistic about the number of people that speak Dutch compared with the number of people that speak English? Are we not talking about 10% or even less? The Banner talk 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you every actually read anything people write? Where on earth have I mentioned Dutch speakers? I have referred to "20% the number of pages". I still note you have not given any reason for deletion based on any of the relevant policies or guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You start giving out on the fact that the Dutch Wikipedia is much smaller. What is wrong with it to point out that the number of Dutch speaking people is far less than the number of people who speak English? With a smaller base, it is quite likely that you have less articles. That you confuse article numbers with quality, as you did, is entirely your problem. The Banner talk 11:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why on earth did you start this mini thread with the inane and inconsequential "fact" that there isn't a page for this on the Dutch wiki page? You raised this meaningless point, and now seem to want to argue about the equally aimless "fact" about the number of Dutch speakers. I'm just don't understand what you are on about here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly a criteria for notability now is it. It has an article on the restaurant and not the hotel and Duis building because like yourself the editor was more interested in Michelin restaurants than hotels. There is more than enough sources to indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep One of the most invalid deletion rationales I've ever seen. Easily meets guidelines as a five-star hotel and well sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We are an encyclopedia- articles like this are our bed rock -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hotel was opened in 1999 and occupies only part of the Duitse Huis complex, which dates from 1348. It is clearly a separate subject from Duitse Huis. It is a very visible five star hotel. Many independent sources discuss it. The hotel is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is absolutely no justification for deleting this informative article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nom is a ridiculous wase of time, with absolutely no justification at all, and the nominator has not given any reasons for deletion based on the relevant guidelines. I'm going to a SNOW KEEP on this, and ask for it to be closed accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand on "advertising"? The Banner talk 15:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it fully; this article is written in a neutral tone and complies fully with WP:NOTADVERTISING. What do you consider to be advertising? - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising is usually paid. Is this statement meant to imply I have been paid to write the article? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, advertising is not always paid. Sometimes it happens when somebody is scraping info and forgets that an article should be neutral in style and tone. The Banner talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the whole part "facilities" for instance. And the many links to hotel guides that offer just the same info. Did I not hear somebody about clutter when using too many sources? The Banner talk 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As that is a bland list of the facilities found within the hotel, with no peacock terms (ie. "an excellent suite", "a luxurious centre", etc), I think you are just clutching vainly at straws here. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of standard facilities that every 5-ster hotels has. The rating system is not based on quality but on the service-level and facilities offered, including a prescribed minimum size of rooms/suites. And what I qualify as advertising are sentences as The auditorium seats 114 people. There is an unobtrusive sound system in the conference facility and public areas of the hotel. That is non-information, as every auditorium has seats and every conference facility of some size has a sound system. The Banner talk 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty much your entire proposal to delete this entire article (well-referenced and about a notable subject) is based on a sentence about seats and a sound system? Good grief!!!!! @Aymatth2:, would you be able to tweak these two horrifically offending phrases so that no-one will think Wikipedia is a collection of paid stooges for the Dutch tourist board? Then, maybe, we can close this frankly pointless AfD and get back to less pointless activities. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, I just suggest to replace it by User:The Banner/Workpage13 that is much more neutral in tone and style, has not too much double information with Duitse Huis en Grand Restaurant Karel V and does not have the clutter of passing mentions named as sources. The Banner talk 18:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame you've wasted your time on such a pointless exercise. The current article is far superior, and certainly does not need to be replaced by the anaemic piece that tells us so little. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least I did something positive and offered an alternative. But it is not up to us to decide on it, that is a community affair. The Banner talk 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this AfD is a monumentally negative step to have taken, with absolutely no justification, I wouldn't boast about how "constructive" you think you've been. As to the community deciding, so far it seems as if no-one is in agreement with you on this, and it's hardly surprising: there is no justification for the AfD process here. None. Zilch. Nada. Niet een klein beetje. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do a bit strange: be positive, constructive and cooperative. The only thing you have done so far is protesting, attacking and being negative. The Banner talk 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am being constructive: trying to stop a ridiculous and pointless AfD. It's funny you accuse me of "protesting, attacking and being negative", as that is exactly what this hugely pointless (and ridiculously pointy) AfD is, and we all know which protesting, attacking and negative editor stated it off, don't we? - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try some self-reflection. The Banner talk 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? I am not the one who has started this pointless AfD Banner. Perhaps you should look at why you have nominated for discussion an article about a notable subject that has sufficient independent references from reliable sources. It's certainly not because of the sound system and number of seats: that just needs a tweak, rather than this rather ridiculous process. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To User:The Banner's comments on standard facilities, a five star hotel may have ten rooms, no bar, no pool, no sauna, no garden. It is relevant to identify the facilities. 114 seats is not a tiny auditorium, but not huge. There is no better way to indicate the size. The sound system is not just in the conference area, but in all the public spaces. They can play muzak or page people all over the hotel. These are details. Nominating an article on an clearly notable subject is disruptive. I find the implication of paid editing highly offensive. @User:The Banner, I suggest you withdraw this nomination at once. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not conform the Dutch rules for hotel classification: (in Dutch) Basisnormen 5 sterren. The Banner talk 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, stop! I have never said that I had the idea that you were a paid editor. Never. The Banner talk 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:The Banner, read the document you attached. There must be two suites, but otherwise number of rooms is not specified. Bar service (delivery) and minibar are required, but not a bar. Pool, sauna, and for that matter beauty salon, tennis court, terrace etc. are optional, with points added if available, not required. The hotel just has to get 90 points total. Garden is not even mentioned. I assume this is consistent with the European Hotelstars Union hotel rating scheme. Readers are unlikely to be aware of these schemes. The article should say what facilities are offered. When you said: What do you not understand on "advertising"?, I took that to mean that you thought the article was advertising, e.g. paid editing. That is offensive. Perhaps I am being over-sensitive. Do you consider that the hotel is notable? If so, please withdraw the nomination. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2205. Bar met bediening door personeel in het hotel, met internationaal assortiment dranken.

Crossing the line into advertising/promo does not mean that I accuse you of paid editing. A slip of the keyboard is far more likely. So I absolutely do not accuse you of paid editing. Absolutely not. I have made an alternative for your article here: User:The Banner/Workpage13. To my opinion an article that is much more neutral in tone and style, has not too much double information with Duitse Huis en Grand Restaurant Karel V and does not have the clutter of passing mentions named as sources. The Banner talk 19:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:The Banner, when you have withdrawn this AfD nomination you may open a discussion on the article's talk page about replacing the content with your alternative version. First, I ask that you make an unqualified apology here for your slur on my integrity as an editor. Not an excuse, an apology. I ask that no other editors intervene until User:The Banner has responded here. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for an apology, as I did never accuse you of paid editing, Aymatth2.

And no, I do not withdraw the nomination as the article in the present form is unfit for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 03:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the present hotel article is unfit for wikipedia Banner, so are most of your restaurant stubs. Be a man and withdraw it rather than continuing to act like a petulant child. It doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted and you're embarrassing yourself by insisting that this continues.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 27 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of suspects in the Ergenekon investigation[edit]

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

Many persons are included in the list as being "under suspicion of being members of the illegal Ergenekon network," but they are persons of no demonstrated notability otherwise, many are not even said to have been arrested and charged, and many have no reference at all or any Wikipedia article. WP:BLPCRIME is the relevant policy, and says "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6]" Only non-English sources are provided in general, and appear to be very stale as to status for those who have any references, such as stating they are "standing trial" as of 2007. There does not appear to be any prospect that anyone will bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to start, based on the arguments by the nominator per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. However, this also fails WP:LIST as being fairly random and listing many NN persons (as evidenced by all those names of defendants in red links). There are also, as noted, no way to verify much of the information, which is sourced in the odd Turkish orthography, which is difficult to search via older browsers. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when did Wikipedia become CNN? MiracleMat (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2014 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cramer (US Congressional candidate)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, which is not a claim that passes WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, the article relies strongly on primary and unreliable sources — there is a small smattering of coverage in his local daily newspaper, but nothing which demonstrates that he's passed the higher standard necessary to qualify for an article on Wikipedia yet. Local media have a legal and ethical obligation to cover local politics, so the fact that they do so doesn't get unelected candidates over our inclusion bar for politicians if there's no substantive national coverage to demonstrate that they're in any way more notable than most unelected candidates. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the election in November, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. He may gain notability, but as of now it's a case of WP:TOOSOON Delete Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The case is actually worse than presented above. Cramer has not even won a nomination for the office. He has to win two elections to become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Where is there a "rule" that says "win two elections to become notable?" I don't see it. The guidelines state "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Seems to me we have a major party candidate for a federal office. The primary is in August, the candidate does not appear to be a fringe or novelty candidate. This isn't the county sheriff's race or a state-level race. A search on https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Dan+Cramer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=Dan+Cramer+Congress&rls=en produces quite a number of hits in Tennessee news publications, plus some national ones such as Vote Smart, Daily Kos and some others. I say leave it up through the primary, if he loses, then AfD it again and see what happens. If he wins the promary, then someone will have to go to all the work of recreating it, which is a silly waste of time. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create pages for people who may become notable. See WP:TOOSOON. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert wasn't talking about a core criterion that all politicians have to pass, requiring that they've been elected to office twice before they can qualify for an article; he was referring to the fact that as of right now Cramer hasn't even won his own party's primary yet, let alone the general election. It takes just one general election win to make a politician notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but Cramer hasn't even won the nomination yet to be his party's candidate in the general election, let alone actually winning the seat he wants to represent. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Campaign biography of an unelected politician who does not seem to pass GNG from other activities not related to his political campaign. That such pieces should be deleted is a pretty firm consensus at AfD, not that I myself particularly support that approach. Still: that's the consensus. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't support that approach, then why vote here to support it? Consensus can change. If they are the challenger and win the primary, does that change metters? (If this were a state election, I'd agree, but this is a federal office) Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not unless you are prepared to create articles on everyone who had a major party nomination for congress from 1789 to the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's actually a false equivalency "it's a lot of work" does not equate to "it is a bad idea." That said, why not? Over at wikiproject horse racing, we have about 9,000 articles tagged for the project, basically graded-stakes-winning racehorses dating back to about 1700. It's doable, at least in theory. Would take a lot of people a lot of time, but frankly, given that many (possibly most) people who would be included probably qualify already under GNG for other reasons (recent examples of people who pass WP:GNG and ran for Congress but lost from my own state: Monica Lindeen, Kim Gillan). In addition, all incumbents have articles already, and many of these were failed candidates before hey were successful ones. So given that we'd only have to do articles on major party nominees who were not already notable for other reasons, we don't have a situation where we'd have to create 435 new biographies every other year. I would agree that people running for state offices, certainly state legislative offices, might not be inherently notable, but running for Congress is a big deal. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "all incumbants have articles already", shows a clear American bias. There are many articles that we are lacking for Mexico, India and many other countries, especially from a historical perspective. That said, the vast majority of party nominees over history have lost after one election. This is easily 10,000 new articles if not more. In practice, this will probably be mainly created for more recent people, which will lead to wikipedia being over-burdened by recentism more than it already is.
      - It's not Wikipedia's job to grant "equal time" to all candidates in an election — our job is to filter the current news and figure out what people will still need to know five or ten or fifty years from now. A person who actually wins election to and holds a notable office is such a topic — but a person whose only substantive claim of notability is the fact that they ran in an election which they didn't win is just a WP:BLP1E who ceases to be a topic of meaningfully encyclopedic interest the day after the election is over. So if you're relying on their electoral candidacy as the primary claim of notability, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for an article on here — to make an unelected candidate qualify for a Wikipedia article, you need to substantively demonstrate that he was already notable enough for an article on Wikipedia for other reasons (e.g. he was already notable as a writer, an athlete, an astronaut, an actor, a holder of a different notable political office, etc.) before he was named as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I would agree that a failed candidacy could be grounds for a BLP1E situation, but while they are running, they are inherently newsworthy and usually have coverage in multiple independent third party publications. And in this case, it is actually quite rare for a US House candidate to run with no prior experience. We have thousands of articles on state-level legislators, from whom most candidates for federal office are round. It is actually a serious issue if, for example, two candidates run in a primary, one with a WP article due to their previous activities and one who cannot be deemed notable for an article because they have yet to be elected. Odd logic, here. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        We have a rule that notability is not temporary. We do not allow articles to exist for a defined period of time and then consider them for deletion if they fail to meet a future test whose results cannot be predicted today; rather, the article cannot exist at all until you can prove that the person has already become permanently notable rather than temporarily newsy. The test a person has to meet to qualify for an article on here is whether they'll still be a topic of interest to readers two or five or ten or fifty years from now — a test which people pass if they actually hold a notable office, but don't necessarily pass just by running for one they haven't won yet. And we're not the media, either, but an encyclopedia — so whether the challenger in an election is getting "equal time" in comparison to the incumbent is simply not our concern at all. Trust me, plenty of people have won elections over the years without already having Wikipedia articles to rely on — and plenty of people without Wikipedia articles have won election over people who did have them, too. People who can vote in Cramer's election have plenty of resources from which they can make their own decisions about whether to vote for Cramer or an opposing candidate — there's campaign literature, there's local media, and on and so forth — the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article in the meantime is not going to make the difference in whether he gets elected or not, so ensuring that all candidates in an election have "equal coverage" is not a reason to compromise our content and inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As yet unsuccessful political candidate non-notable for any other reason. Saying "running for Congress is a big deal" is really quite irrelevant. Running for the British Parliament is quite a big deal too, but there are probably in the region of 4,000+ candidates in every general election (about half of which probably have a fighting chance of being elected). Most will lose and never be heard of again. Same in most other countries, although there are probably even more candidates in most of them (since most have more serious political parties than we do). So either we become completely US-centric and restrict our articles on failed candidates to America (a country which, very unusually, only has two serious political parties) or we open the floodgates to creating hundreds of thousands of articles on really quite non-notable individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not nearly that many candidates running for US federal offices, we only have 435 seats in the house, after all. But in all honesty, I don't see this as a problem, people have to want to create an article, the don't HAVE to do so. Frankly, if they have articles on obscure Sri Lankan cricket players who played a single season, then why not have articles on Sri Lankan political candidates? Probably more cricket players than candidates, methinks... Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but it's not really a valid argument to say that we should make a special case for America because there are fewer candidates. That's clearly pro-US bias. Either all unsuccessful candidates are notable or none are. I think there's a bit of a difference between playing a sport at the highest professional level and taking part in a single election, especially if you have no credible chance of winning. Although I would agree that sportspeople are over-represented. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen One (album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability Gregkaye (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found a Cross Rhythms review, but that is all. Not enough to establish notability.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:06, 30 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plan (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found one review, but not much else. Not quite enough for notability.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (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. A new encyclopedic article may be created with sources if the book becomes notable after it is released. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNAFU ANTHOLOGY[edit]

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

This page is for a book release, and matches the many thousands of other book pages on Wiki. Gnbraun (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was clearly made by someone involved with releasing the book, and reads like a press release. It likely doesn't meet notability guidelines, and seems to serve more of a promotional purpose for the book than informational purpose. 70.198.36.165 (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up this page. Ansh666 15:19, 25 June 2014 (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/2014 June 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Response — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonymUpshaw (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the publisher isn't notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. Do any of the authors have their own Wikipedia page? It can be tempting to make Wikipedia pages for things one has created or is launching, but the notability standard is pretty practical and makes sense: if people unrelated to the content producers care enough to make a page, and can use legitimate media sources (instances in which notable content producers have commented on a thing) as citations, then it deserves a page.

One clear benchmark test is if the the only citation is to the website of the thing releasing the content that the page is about. If news articles aren't being written about a thing, and the only person who feels compelled to write an article are people involved with the product or release itself, that's self-evidently not notable.

This isn't an offense, however. The notability standards for Wikipedia are very high. Lots of very popular and successful things are not yet listed on Wikipedia. Not being notable enough to have a page that isn't deleted shouldn't be taken as an affront. In addition, Wikipedia doesn't really work as a marketing method as people look up things they already know about or stumble onto topics adjacent to ones they are researching. Nobody who doesn't already know about this is going to come across this page, and then go buy the book. HarmonymUpshaw (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See WP:NBOOK#Not_yet_published_books, in particular, this quote: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." If this book becomes notable in the future, Wikipedia will resurrect the article. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass our notability guidelines. Article is not encyclopedic in any way. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Kozhevnikova[edit]

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

Misleading claim to gusiness world record (debunked here). No apparent overage outside titilating coverage in tabloid magazines (of various flavours) and a huffington post article debunking them. No native-language article to mine references from. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither source is reliable as both repeat the Guiness falsehood and the second source publishes accurate information only sporadically, placing a higher priority on cheap sensationalism. The claim to notability is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Found a few references, wondering if Wikipedia has a notability guide for freak skills. Not the kind of thing I'd like to see in Wikipedia but probably meets WP:GNG, unfortunately. About the references: agree they're shaky; I wonder how Guinness, if it ever set up vaginal weightlifting as a category, could check such a thing? A prelifting exam? While the Guinness claim is most likely dubious, out-hoaxed by Ron Dicker, it is the kind of thing that Guinness is likely to cover in future; it is a Guinnessable area. While it is a freak-show circus-act type of thing, it relates to a broader subject, namely, kegel exercises => stronger vaginal walls => possibly greater sexual pleasure, so it is bound to be in the (tabloid) media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.See http://rekordy-ginnesa.ru/lyudi/samoe-silnoe-v-mire-vlagalishhe.html Кот на крыше (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what that reference says (and I'll admit to not speaking Russian), eight lines of text is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lose no sleep if this article is deleted, nor dicker or bargain about the Dicker contention in the Huffington Post, or probe into the extent of the depth coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A note left on my talk page said that she holds Guinness record 58300381. I visited the Guinness World Record website, and searched with that number, then with her name and then with the word "vagina". All three of my searches came up empty, so I can only conclude that there is no such Guinness World Record. So, we have several sources repeating what seems to be a falsehood. How can those be called reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily expect reliable publications such as The Sun, whose reputation ranks right up there with The Enquirer and Fox News for veracity and accuracy, to confirm these claims directly by hiring a reputable pollster, preferably an adult male of jockey-weight or less (31 pounds), to verify whether liftoff could be achieved and suspension achieved, with cameras going, as well as hiring a board-certified gynecologist to ensure there were no bodily abnormalities causing an unfair advantage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might have the makings of a Saturday Night Live sketch here... Carrite (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. BLP-1E is the formal rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% agree with Carrite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2014 (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 civilized countries in the world where the media refrains from reporting a defendant's name until he is found guilty. Canada is apparently not one of those countries. I do not find BLP relevant when multiple newspapers have already reported the defendant's name and have given this "trial of the century" style treatment. Another AfD when the trial concludes would not be insensible. Shii (tock) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Legebokoff[edit]

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

This individual has not yet been tried. As per WP:BLPCRIME, articles about persons who have been accused but not convicted of crimes and are otherwise not notable are usually not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer, I still support deletion after the questionable move. The questionable move is under discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:XBALL. No opinion on whether this article or any content should be moved to an article on the series of murders itself: if so, a redirect should not be retained unless and until a conviction is secured. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. I can see the argument per "not bureaucracy" that the article may as well be written now, but for the greater good there should be no precedent of creating an article that would only exist if the subject were a notable criminal before the person is convicted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME says only "serious consideration" should be given prior to creating an article, the intent of the policy being not to generate widespread publicity for a presumably innocent person where such publicity does not already exist. In this case, however, "serious consideration" does not rise to overwhelm the massive and intractable coverage that has been generated by this highly publicized trial, with 34 stories reported by the CBC alone. The policy, therefore, does not in this case trump GNG and the article meets standards. BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per WP:N/CA "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." This is not a routine alleged crime but a major, headline-grabbing trial of an alleged serial killer that has received a wide amount of national and international press attention over a period of three years. The National Post alone has run 14 separate stories on Legebokoff. The CBC has run 39 stories in three years. Reporting has occurred in the U.S., Britain, and Australia as well, consistently and over a period of time. Even if the accused is acquitted, his arrest and trial will still be a notable event (frankly, it will be even more notable if he's acquitted, but I'm not gonna crystal ball that). BlueSalix (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, WP:N/CA has to do with articles about crimes, not about persons accused of the crimes. It refers for instance to a disappearance of a person that is thought to be due to criminal activity, not to the person who is thought to have disappeared the victim. An article about the murders is appropriate, but this article is about someone who may or may not be a murderer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:BLPCRIME, it says only that "serious consideration" must be given to not identifying an accused person by name. This is not a commandment that names may not be used but a suggestion to preserve privacy, where privacy continues to exist. Given the widespread publication of this extremely high-profile trial, with gross media impressions surpassing the hundreds of millions, it is beyond all bounds of common sense to suggest the "serious consideration" outlined in BLPCRIME applies here as the veil of privacy has been breached to an intractable degree. I suppose I'd have no objection if we want to rename this article "Cody Legebekoff Trial" or "Crown vs. Legebekoff," but deletion is wholly inappropriate and, honestly, ridiculous to the point of this bordering on a nuisance nomination. BlueSalix (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLPCRIME applies to people, not their alleged crimes. Regardless of the amount of coverage pre-trial, Legebokoff is innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody can predict the outcome of the trial, the premise for the existence of this article is pure speculation. Content like who he was dating at the time of his arrest is in no way encyclopedic. If (and only if) he is found guilty the article can be recreated, subject to the usual requirements. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. BLPCRIME recognizes exceptions by stating "serious consideration;" as opposed to an absolute standard. This is one of the exceptions anticipated by BLPCRIME as we are in a situation where: (a) if he is acquitted, the article will meet GNG due to the sheer, overwhelming volume of international coverage which has intractably breached the veil of privacy BLPCRIME exists to protect (see: George Zimmerman), (b) if he is convicted, the article will meet GNG because he was convicted. IOW, whether he is acquitted or convicted, the article will exist. I understand a number of people are weighing-in here supposing this is a run-of-the-mill criminal trial and, if that were true, I would be inclined to support delete also. But it is not. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the volume, intensity, and breadth of global coverage this trial has received which makes it a standalone event regardless of Legebokoff's guilt or innocence. For the fourth time, BLPCRIME does not describe an absolute standard, the phrase "serious consideration should be given" simply establishes a higher threshold that must be met for inclusion. The basis for a BLPCRIME argument for delete is that an article does not meet the high threshold demanded, not that BLPCRIME requires all articles about presumed innocent persons be deleted. There appears to be a great deal of confusion here about what BLPCRIME says. BlueSalix (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me BlueSalix, but you seem to be missing the point here. If the article was titled Arrest and trial of Cody Legebokoff, which is its current topic, it might be notable based on the coverage. But it isn't and Wikipedia is not in the business of judging whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Until such time as that is determined, Legebokoff remains non-notable because he is not notable for anything else other than the alleged crime. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, I said above (I guess you chose not to read the AfD before weighing in), I have no problem with that title. Since you're okay with it, too, I'll go ahead rename it now so we can close this AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article "Cody Legebokoff" now no longer exists. The article "Trial of Cody Legebokoff" does, however, exist. If you still support delete, please restate your arguments at this time. BlueSalix (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete and possibly sanction BlueSalix for a WP:POINT violation (don't argue that Philg88 pushed you to do it). A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an article titled in such a way to not be a biography can still violate BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. The time stamp shows I called, in my reply to Robert McClenon, for this page to be renamed "Trial of ..." more than four hours before Philg88 subsequently suggested it. I would say Mendaliv may need to be sanctioned for a WP:GAME violation, however, for trying to obfuscate this fact. This is a discussion, Mendaliv, not BattleWiki. We're here to debate, not kneecap or "take out" the opposition. Please approach this AfD with that sensibility. BlueSalix (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be absolutely clear here, I did not suggest that the article be renamed, but rather posed a hypothetical question as part of the justification for deletion under the original title. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I apologize if I misinterpreted you. However, for future reference, an AfD is not the place for thought experiments, hypothetical musings, or sarcasm; we're here for clear and concise discussion, not to attempt divine and interpret the nuances of cutting points, subtle jibes, and artistic flourishes. BlueSalix (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Relax. The article will be undeleted just as soon as a conviction is recorded, and the edit history will be restored. There is no need to restate the BLPCRIME arguments as they are self-evidently correct, despite an application of lipstick. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still support deletion or a move to an article about the killings, per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:PERP. I'd also note that it's entirely possible this individual will be acquitted... I'm not up on Canadian search and seizure law, but it seems like there are definite issues that need to be addressed. The way the article currently paints things—essentially that by making X claim the individual subjected himself to an administrative search not requiring nearly the due process of law that would have otherwise been afforded to a criminal suspect—is kind of suspicious from a NPOV standpoint in my view. But I digress. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to an article about the killings, from Cody Legebokoff to Trial of Cody Legebokoff. I agree, it's quite possible Legebokoff will be acquitted, which is why the article is about the trial as a standalone GNG-compliant event, and not Cody Legebokoff as an individual. If this were a WP:BIO it would have a person infobox, or mention things about his relationships, neither of which it has/does. Right now I don't have any idea what you're arguing. You post "DELETE," then say you don't actually want it deleted but just renamed, then post "DELETE" again after it's been renamed, then subsequently reaffirm that you don't actually want it deleted. For the benefit of the reviewing admin, I kindly ask you take a step back, collect your thoughts, and re-present your position so it can be more easily comprehended. BlueSalix (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want this article title deleted because it violates WP:BLP. Even if convicted, this would be the wrong article title. The crimes are what are possibly notable. Find what the media called them and start an article—and don't just move this one. If you think my position is incomprehensible, I think you could stand to do some more reading on Wikipedia policy. These are standard arguments for articles on people accused of crime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media are calling it the "Country Boy Killer Trial" (the five murders themselves were only connected to each other at the point of indictment; they did not have a collective name outside the context of the trial as with other serial killings [e.g. Green River Killings, etc.]). So, I have to respectfully disagree with your implicit request we rename the article from "Trial of Cody Legebokoff" to "Country Boy Killer Trial." That seems inappropriate. I would like to counter, however, with a suggestion you read up on the topic on which you're weighing-in before offering these ideas like "rename it to whatever the media are calling it." As we can see, that's a bit of a recipe for disaster and decidedly POV. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. BlueSalix (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a high profile case and as such should be kept. The issues are the title (possibly fixed by the move; the common name of the crimes themselves [if there is one] would likely be an even better title) and the fact it is still framed a bit like a bio (it should start with the crimes, then have info on the suspect, not the other way around, for starters). Both of these issues, however, can be fixed by editing and the content itself is worth keeping. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There was [a discussion] on this AfD at ANI. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now at [4] --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep As per Mendaliv's "still delete" opinion, I would like to express an opinion of "still keep" for the reasons previously stated in my "Strong Keep" explanation. BlueSalix (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:ONEEVENT. The existence of a media circus does not mean we should lower our BLP standards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Given that "The article will be undeleted just as soon as a conviction is recorded, "(Johnuniq) and considering the extreme unlikelihood that keeping this would damage the trial, deleting it now is a little nonsensical. I also agree with BlueSalix that the trial will be even more notable if there's an acquittal. WP BLP is not meant to contradict common sense. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:XBALL. And yes Lankiveil you are right in a sense of standards. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP BLP is being twisted around by those in fabour of delete here, it is not meant to contradict common sense. This is clearly a highly notable crime/trial which is also covered by extended sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of the deletion argument. It's the crime/trial that is arguably notable, not Legebokoff himself. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article is covering the Trial of Cody Legebokoff, that deletion argument is mute.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not sure where this AfD goes now since the move has happened. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A prosecution of someone for being a serial killer can be encyclopedic, when like this one there are multiple reliable news sources having significant coverage. Renaming the article to be about the trial rather than the individual is an improvement. Ideally the article would be about the crime or crimes rather than the alleged perpetrator, but the news stories used as refs do not provide such a common name for the set of killings. It would be a longish title if we moved the article to The killings of Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas, Natasha Montgomery and Loren Leslie,. It is reminiscent of the awkwardness of titling the article about the three young women kidnapped in Cincinnatti. But apparently the police and the media did not nickname the series of killings,or the killer like BTK Killer or Hillside Strangler. Lacking a Jack the Ripper or Boston strangler title, an article about the trial seems the best option. The WP:BLP language calling for discretion is clearly not a ban on articles mentioning the names of those arrested or being tried for crimes. Wikipedia is not under the Sub judice requirements of British law preventing media mention of the accused. And even when the trial results in an acquittal, it is appropriate to have an article about it if there has been sufficient coverage to make it encyclopedic, such as George Zimmerman and State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and O. J. Simpson murder case and Death of Caylee Anthony, to mention but three notable acquittals. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire category of "People acquitted of murder" which presently has 158 entries. It would not be appropriate or encyclopedic to try and hush up all acquittals, any more than to stifle coverage of notable trials and crimes. Edison (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer – This article has been renamed to Trial of Cody Legebokoff. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TBS (U.S. TV channel). WP:TOOSOON sums this up (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Amir (TV series)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON? I say redirect to Jake Hurwitz or TBS until this actually becomes a show instead of just a maybe pilot. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 25 June 2014 (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) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolve events[edit]

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

Not a significant list, subject is not notable Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by nominator. Your nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 tables with the main events... if somebody includes all the matches, Keep. If nobody changes the article, delete --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete EVOLVE might be notable, though their main article isn't linked in this list for some reason. They aren't notable enough for a list like this that lists every show though... and as HHH points out, the article isn't even maintained very well.LM2000 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Gate USA and Evolve Wrestling unified late 2011. They are equal in popularity, share rosters and book shows together. Yet DGUSA has ten different pages about its events. There should be at least one about EVOLVE Makeblake (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe we have an (ahem!) "evolving precedent" that lists of such events are not generally notable. This is not to say that the promoters themselves are not notable, of course. In any case, the references here are not satisfactory, and what is available is essentially publicity material, which is not acceptable. RomanSpa (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Elcoat[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability in this article. You can't be notable for not being something Gbawden (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While you can be notable for not being something (Anna Anderson? Perkin Warbeck?) it's certainly not automatic, and being mentioned in a couple of football history lists isn't really comparable to pretending to be royalty. He fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, and merits at most a note on Arsenal's article. This personal web page gives a good account of what is going on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Elcoat had actually gone around passing himself off as a sports manager and gained something from it, there might be a way he was notable, but accidentlly being put in a list the way he was is not such a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cascabel (roller coaster)[edit]

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

WikiProject Amusement Parks is in the process of removing roller coaster articles that do not have enough notable content to justify their existence. This is a perfect example of one. The important details about this roller coaster already exist in the Shuttle Loop article. The remaining content is unsourced. GoneIn60 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One copy of a common roller coaster design. A single article can cover all instances of this model. --McDoob AU93 03:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the nominator and McDoob make a compelling case for deletion. Unsourced piece. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Www.araiampathy.com[edit]

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

Seams like a non-notable book (maybe even non-existing). Google search returns no hits ([5]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Article is basically a redirect/advertisement to the article creator's website. Cowlibob (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2014 (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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Tsui[edit]

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

If there's a notability requirement for architects, I can't find it, sorry, but my feeling is that this subject wouldn't fulfill it. Notability is claimed for "a number of designs that he has proposed that remain unbuilt", not for his actual buildings, which are a school, several residential homes, and his firm's company headquarters. A long and extravagantly detailed and promotional text is currently being persistently reinserted by a new account, but even without that, this is a fluff piece with no substance. The non-self sources, two magazine articles, are underwhelming. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I was going to deny the requested protection, because even with the removed text, there's no real notability for him. He seems to be up and coming, but as Nelson Rockefeller knew, $2 and a paper napkin with get you the Egg. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason an architect couldn't be notable for unbuilt projects, if they get substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Consider Rem Koolhaas at the beginning of his career.) For Tsui, there is coverage such as Popular Mechanics [6] [7]; San Francisco Chronicle [8]; Associated Press in the Los Angeles Times [9]; Hyphen [10]; Village Voice [11]; East Bay Express [12]; Nature [13] (paywalled); The Daily Telegraph [14]; and a bunch of books [15]. We should fend off any continued efforts to stuff this article with promotional content, but notability seems apparent. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos who's found quite alot of sources. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arxiloxos if you can incorporate the sources into a coherent narrative, I'd change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article has now been revised and heavily footnoted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (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. Client website is not a reliable source Shii (tock) 15:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DataShell[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in the multiple wp:secondary, wp:independent and wp:reliable sources. Therefore, it does not meet WP:NCORP standard and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources; they're mentioned in Bitcoin blogs and directories, but nothing that meets WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (cant find an appropriate area to post this)

External media source coindesk has been added to the article to provide external media source verificaiton - http://www.coindesk.com/votebox-dropbox-datashell-storage/

DataShell was one of the first services to launch for exclusive bitcoin payment and the first cloud backup service to offer bitcoin payment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad macs (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mad macs - I've left you a reply on your talk page. This is a deletion discussion page for the article you created some time earlier. Here, we discuss if the subject qualifies for inclusion. You may find the details regarding this process at WP:AFD. I've nominated the page for deletion because I believe that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia notability guideline. I may be wrong. If you believe, the article should not be deleted and is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, you may place your rationale here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find substantial coverage of this software in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (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 "keep" !votes confuse citations with in-depth coverage. This has nothing to do with the subject being an activist or alternative medicine practitioner, because a "mainstream" medical practitioner would not be judged notable with this number of citations either (many hundreds, close to a thousand at least, would be needed for that). Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Laibow[edit]

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

Obscure alternative medicine author/practitioner/UFO activist fails notability requirements for a biography. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) :* Reply to LuckyLouie, Obscure ??????? That is a totally incorrect statement. Obscure would mean exactly that. If she was obscure she would not have the profile that she has today. Have a look at her profile in the issue of Codex Alimentarius, vaccination, GM foods, books and magazines, online references. There's so much out there and if you're not looking then you're not looking etc. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - unless notability can be proven by reliable secondary sources, and the article can be made NPOV, writing style cleaned up to proper standards, cited from secondary sources (that ain't self published)... honestly, if notability were to be established it would be better to start from scratch. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP and WP:AUTHOR. Cannot find any criteria by which this person is notable. jps (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found three unique trivial mentions about her in GNews archives dating back to the late 80s and early 90s, [16] however, I am not convinced that is enough to establish notability since those articles are not primarily focused on her. Lots of outgoing professionals are quoted or referred to much more frequently in credible newspapers without meeting notability criteria. Similar types of hits in GBooks, but all seem to be from sources discussing fringe topics or SPS. Location (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking over 15 SERP pages, only fairly good reference I found was here, not much else, doesn't meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - Is censorship in place ? Rima Laibow appears in multiple publications, medical books that have been sold over counters in shops around the world. Books in paper form with cardboard binding. Books with ISBN numbers. What's the issue here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss Reality (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Reply, dumb question Boss Reality. Why ask the question? You know the answer. I can help you here. Yes. (Brother Samson (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
KEEP, Notable article in many areas but unotable for those who don't like whistleblowers and activists. Someone should make an effort to see how many publications Dr Rima Laibow appears in. Make the effort to look into Google Books for a start. Also the below publications that she has contribited to are for sale on abebooks right now.

A Cancer Answer: Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments (Volume 1) - Published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012 ISBN 1477490175 / ISBN 9781477490174
Anomalous Experiences and Trauma: Current Theoretical Research and Clinical Perspectives - Published by The Center for Treatment * and Research of Experienced Anomalous Trauma 1992 [5] [17] This is just for starters! (Boss Reality (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. If I could save the article, I would, since I like to rescue articles, but Wikipedia has guidelines, so it really doesn't matter about personal opinions about whistleblowers and activists, the guidelines prevail, and it is people following the guidelines which the community makes, which makes the encyclopedia helpful, powerful, relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both "Holistic BREAST Cancer Management" and "Anomalous Experiences and Trauma" are self published books via Createpace, and thus fails WP:RS by a mile or so - ref WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, lack of anything that amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with example to support - Written works where Dr Laibow has been referenced, quoted or has contributed to (Selective) and counting. Below are some of the published books and a good deal of them are not self published.
Alternative Medicine, Second Edition: The Definitive Guide - Edited by Larry Trivieri, John W. Anderson - ISBN:978-1-58761-141-4 ^[1]
The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles - By Bruce H. Lipton - ISBN:978-1-4019-2311-2 ^[2]
HEALTH DISCLOSURE: The Sequence to Obesity & Disease - By Adam Masters - ISBN: 978-1-4525-8503-1 ^[3]
If Someone Speaks, It Gets Lighter: Dreams and the Reconstruction of Infant Trauma - By Linda Share - ISBN:0-88163-182-5 ^[4]
Journey to a Brave New World - By David Watts - ISBN:978-1-4759-7484-3 ^[5]
Lifestyle Choices ... Up to You! - By Ginger Woods O'Shea - ISBN: 9781615791651 ^[6]
Nurturing the Unborn Child: A Nine-Month Program for Soothing, Stimulating, and Communicating with Your Baby - by Thomas R. Verny, Pamela Weintraub - ISBN: 1587541041, 9781587541049 ^[7]
Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating - by Jeffrey M. Smith - ISBN: 0972966501, 9780972966504 ^[8]
Sightings By Susan Michaels ISBN: 0-684-82369-1 ^[9]
Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat - By Patrick Huyghe - ISBN: 1-931044 27-9 ^[10]
The Trickster and the Paranormal - By George P. Hansen - Library of Congress Number: 201116933 - ISBN: 1-4010-0081-9 ^[11]
User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield - ISBN-10: 59120-177-2 User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield - ISBN-10: 59120-177-2 ^[12]

Comment to comment: At least three of those are self-published works, and the rest looks like fringe publishers. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree these sources seem WP:FRINGE; is there anything in the New York Times, Time Magazine, AMA journal, medical journals, psychiatric journals, etc???--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the combination of low notability and WP:FRINGE material makes it impossible to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep; Dr Laibow is notable as someone can be notable. Explanation. Well known public speaker on multiple issues ranging from GM food to pharmaceutical issues. She has appeared in medical books and manuals as a contributor as well as someone who is often quoted. Books that have been published via publishing companies as well as some self-published, feature her prominently in many of them. These have been sold worldwide and end up in libraries and homes and other places all around the world. To insinuate that she is somehow not notable is false. She has also appeared in a multitude of documentaries I believe. She's appeared in some Alex Jones as well. (Brother Samson (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... If she is a 'well known public speaker', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if she speaks about fringe material. If she has 'appeared in medical books and manuals', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - if they are notable enough books. If she has 'appeared in a multitude of documentaries', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if said documentaries may be fringe themselves. Is she has 'appeared in some Alex Jones', I'm sure reliable sources can be found - even if I'm not sure that appearing on a show hosted by a conspiracy theorist is something that is notable by itself. In short, reliable sources needs to show that she is indeed notable. Simply saying she is does not make it so. WegianWarrior (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, It's obvious Brother Samson isn't only saying she's notable because of being a public speaker. That's just one of the many aspects or Rima Laibow. From what I have seen from the amount of material that's growing daily, the contual repetition of saying Rima Laibow isn't notable is like saying the world if flat. I knew she was notable buit I had no idea of the impressing referencing to her and the contribution to some notable publications she's made. It will be a major embarassment to this website if the article in quesstion gets deleted. This is because I have a strong feeling that what has been uncovered so far is only a fraction of what is out there. even more reason to keep the already obviously notable article.

MORE BOOKS THAT FEATURE OR REFERENCE DR RIMA LAIBOW
The Chinese Roswell: UFO Encounters in the Far East from Ancient Times to the Present by Hartwig Hausdorf - Publisher: New Paradigm Books (August 1998) - ISBN-10: 189213800X [18]
Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food: What You Don’t Know About the Food You’re Eating and What You Can... by Beth Harrison - Publisher: iUniverse, Inc. (November 13, 2007) - ISBN-10: 0595451802
Nature's Gambit: Child Prodigies and the Development of Human Potential (Education and Psychology of the Gifted Series) - by David Henry Feldman and Lynn T. Goldsmith (Oct 1986)
Zen in the Art of Close Encounters: Crazy Wisdom and Ufo's by Paul David Pursglove (Jul 1995) - Publisher: New Being Project - ISBN: 0-96938691-0-8 , Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 94-0801411995 [19]
A Better World is Possible by Bruce Nixon - Publisher: Changemakers Books (October 16, 2011)- ISBN-10: 1846945143
A Cancer Answer: Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments (Volume 1) by Catherine J. Frompovich, Dr. Harold E. Buttram MD, Dr. Julian Mejia MD and Lisa Weir - Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (August 17, 2012)

~~(Boss Reality (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC))~~[reply]

Comment: Two of those are self-published works, with the issues pointed out previously. Three of them are from fridge publishers - one of which seems to double as a self publishing platform. One (the oldest) is from a publishing house that may not be fridge... however the reviews on that points to it being somewhat of a fringe work. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alternative Medicine, Second Edition: The Definitive Guide Pages 35, 36, 86, 87, 140, 466, 486, 621, 642, 665, 748, 765, 830
^ The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles By Bruce H. Lipton Page 132
^ HEALTH DISCLOSURE: The Sequence to Obesity & Disease By Adam Masters[1]
^ If Someone Speaks, It Gets Lighter: Dreams and the Reconstruction of Infant Trauma By Linda Share Pages 136, 228
^ Journey to a Brave New World By David Watts Pages 65 to 66
^ Lifestyle Choices ... Up to You! - By Ginger Woods O'Shea Page 205
^ Nurturing the Unborn Child: A Nine-Month Program for Soothing, Stimulating, and Communicating with Your Baby - by Thomas R. Verny, Pamela Weintraub [2]
^ Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating - by Jeffrey M. Smith [3]
^ Sightings By Susan Michaels Page 130
^ Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat - By Patrick HuyghePage 144
^ The Trickster and the Paranormal - By George P. Hansen Page 451
^ User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield Page 39 - 44

(Boss Reality (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - not because she's WP:FRINGE, but because she's not notable enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - To say that Rima Laibow is not notable would be like saying that half of the articles on Wikipedia aren't notable and lack usable links. I've counted around 18 books that the OP has shown here. Some may be self published but others are not. I've also seen a dozen more. I've had a follow up look on Amazon and other sites that sell these books and some of them have sold well. It wouldn't be an understatement to say that books by Dr Laibow are sitting in medical and health centers worldwide. Her work from what I have seen and have been able to confirm, has covered interviews with reported U.F.O abductees, child abuse and post traumatic stress disorder victims, studies on genetically modified food and organisms, alternative medicine and activism against pharmaceutical and industrial giants. She is so well known and prominent in the USA network for activism against forced vaccinations, anti genticically modified food activism and much , much more. The fact that she has been referenced, referred and has contributed to probably more than 40 published books across at least four distinct issues that are all discrete from each other and easily 20 plus different authors just screams notability. She's appeared in documentaries that feature other notable people as well as had her own findings that have been published in manuals and are in libraries. But there's still more. (Canned Heat Returns (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I've been drawn in after being out of the Wikipedia game for a few years. I won't go in to the reasons why I left but I will say this, we're all human and sometimes suffer from the frailties that make humans both unique as well as very strange. Remember back in the 1970's when experiments such as the Henri Tajfel experiments and the other one which slips my mind were being conducted. The latter involved one group of people giving electric shocks to the other and the feeling of power that some of the participants had. They abused their power and went too far. Sometimes this can happen in places like Wikipedia where people have the power to make changes and sometimes become overzealous in what they see as their duty. With others it can sometimes be their own perceived vision of their own importance can make them do things that others in the same bestowed / self-appointed role wouldn't normally do. Wikipedia can be an amazing place. Not only is it a source of online information, it's one of the best studies and insights into certain types of human behavior around. It's interactive and it's online. A study into the behavioral patterns of human beings, their interactions with others and their reason for selection of information, what they deem to suitable and no-suitable can be and most likely is monitored here. With my limited knowledge which is at a fraction of what Dr Laibow possesses, I can see certain traits and behaviors being played out here. It's interesting when looking from the perch of a no participant but I dare say from the participants view it must really be frustrating. I'll finish off here by saying that if Dr Laibow had taken up botany or history we wouldn't be seeing this debate take place. (Canned Heat Returns (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - This one easily gets my vote. Notable for a whole bunch of reasons. I'll try not to overlap too much on what the other editors who voted to keep have written.

Notable for contrtibution to the psychiatric profession. Numerous contribition, quotation or referncing. There exists a possibility that there is another psychologist with exactly the other name but I'd find that a very remote possibility. In fact, I'd put more money on the truthfulness and the genuinity of the UFO abductees that Laibow has intervied than the possibility of there being two people with the same name. OK humour aside, Rima Laibow has a whole plethora of references in many books. Too many to be ignored! From what I can see and from observing the article originators efforts in gathering the info to show us here, I'd say that if Laibow continues to do what she's doing and if the pyschiatric, holistic, alternative and accepted to be normal medical professions profession continues to function, we'll see more and more books and references to her. A point was made here about NY times not having anything on her. Well ... I think that if any journalist covered her they may have to look for another job. No doubt with wwhat's been presented here. And from what I've seen elswhere with the limited looking here and there that I've done, she's more than notable! (Starman005 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Books, Magazines in National Library of Australia so far. Do I have to provide the New York Library or the South Africa library as well ?? [20]
Financial Times Ltd., 2006 July 5 - Rima Laibow to deliver lecture in Mangalore.
Alternative & Complementary Therapies, v.11, no.5, 2005 Oct, p.223 - Nutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: the death of nutritional medicine
HealthInform: Essential Information on Alternative Health Care, Vol 5, No.7, 1999 November Page 6
Alternative & Complementary Therapies - Codex commission adopts vitamin and mineral guidelines: discordant reactions greet harmonization efforts. - Vol 11, No.4, August 2005
Smithsonian, Vol 14 March 1984 Page 8 - Gifted by nature, prodigies are still mysteries to man
Food Chemical News Vol 47 , No 18 June 13 2005 - US to Oppose Codex Task force on antimicrobial resistance.
Omni Vol 15 No 11, September 1993 - Dark Side of the Unknown
Alternative & Complementary Therapies, Vol 11 No 5 , October 2005 - "Nutraceuticide" and Codex Alimentarius: the death of nutritional medicine. (As Laibow, Rima E)
Newswire Articles below
Business Wire April 6 2005 - Health Freedom USA and Radio Talk Show Hosts Dr. Chris and Organic Zack Will Host April 7 Meeting to Launch Grassroots Campaign to Protect Health Freedoms
Business Wire April 26 2005 - Open International University for Complementary Medicines' World Congress of Integrated Medicine May 13-14 in New York -- Press Invited With Advance Registration.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q=Rima+Laibow
http://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q=Rima+E.+Laibow

(Boss Reality (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I'm pretty convinced by the failure of those who are !voting Keep and have not been able to find sources passing WP:RS that discuss her in any depth. They seem all to be confused about our criteria which is understandable given that they are inexperienced, but despite their hard work can only find passing mentions or material she has written. Let me know if I've overlooked something. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Comment to Dougweller, If you have convinced yourself that the others by their efforts have failed then you have convinced your own mind pretty well. It's obvious to me that Dr Rima Laibow is a notable person and her work is. Now having partaken in this I feel compelled to take an active role in editing the article. It's been made a mess of because certain notable things that were integral to the article should have been left in place. If what you say is true that the references were not that solid then an effort should have been made to improve then wwill searching for better solid references. Taking the complete "wipe out" process leaves the article frgamented and isn't the best thing for Wikipedia. Now more effort has to be made to make the flow better. I'll be now watching this article like a hawk and if there's anything to do to improve then I'll be right there in the front line. (Starman005 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: I have to agree with Dougweller. I am not seeing anything but passing mentions, non RS and non notable publications by the subject. What do the cite counts look like on the subjects papers? H index? Any argument based on notability policies? I would say borderline but the wall of text sources is replete with... - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep , It seems highly unusual that this article is nominated for deletion. Seems like someone is missing something here. :) There's enough notable information in multiple directions to satisfy many of the most important criteria. I fail to see how this is disputed when the evidence of notability is in your face so to speak. (Joecreation (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

- 'Comment Joecreation, you've said this elsewhere, but again you apparently haven't read our notability criteria. Which criteria does this article specifically meet and what sources does it use to meet them? Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant and reliable coverage we require of those who advocate fringe theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... It would be a sad thing if Wikipedia were to turn into Censorpedia?. That means the end of the golden age for Wikipedia. Ever since I put this article up it looks as though has been attacked by what seems to be an organised effort by one or more people. I have had a look at some of the other articles up for deletion and they don't have all of the tags like the ones on the article page. Even one most absurd one about the originator (me) being fan. I'm beginning to wonder if it has been as a way to discredit me, the article and the subject. There seem to be dilligent attempts to make the article look like it's in an array and now is beginning to look like a bunch of piranhas have taken chunks out of it. What next ?
There is so much on Rima Laibow out there and it seems that there is either fear of her or what she is saying or complete and utter naiivity on part of certain editors who have either never learnt about other movements, organisations or issues in the wide, wide world.
Rima Laibow is a prominent and highly notable figure in the anti GM , anti Codex , vaccination awareness movements. She is quoted, referred to continually and continally in magazines, books and articles that report on or are about medical, pyschological, trauma based issues. The sme can be said for health, nutrition and yes .... even UFO abductions. There's a lot of articles in Wikipedia about similar people that don't come anywhere close to the wide spread that Laibow does. Not even close !!! To say that she's not notable is like saying Steve Hager isn't notable and worthy of inclusion here in Wikipedia. I bet the CIA file on Rima is twice as thick as the one that is on Steven. Respectfully I say that I can't discount the possibility that Rima Laibow and what she stands for may upset and frighten certain people more than Steve Hagan ever could.(Boss Reality (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: then where is the reliable sources stating that she is indeed a "prominent and highly notable figure in the anti GM , anti Codex , vaccination awareness movements"? We're not saying she isn't notable; we're saying her notability haven't been proven according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP;

Accusations are deliberately misleading, spurious and inaccurate. This is a calculated attempt to eliminate an article that someone or some corporation finds subjectively offensive and raises questions that are unfounded in facts. Objectors raise questions to which they and anyone else can easily find the answers and are therefore such objections are spurious and unwarranted. RichPikiwEagle (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RichPikiwEagle (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 July 2014[reply]

Comment Sorry, but that's just uncalled for and wrong. But I am curious, User:RichPikiwEagle - how did you learn about this AfD? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, strange that Doug weller kept deleting the Rima connection on Albert Stubblebimne but left this as edit 13:21, 26 June 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,074 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Biography: divorced in 1994 for adultery (Boss Reality (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment I and other editors are concerned about sourcing in BLP articles. I love the source used for the marriage:"The NNDB Mapper is a visual tool for exploring the connections between people in NNDB, linking them together through family relations, corporate boards, movies and TV, political alliances, and shadowy conspiracy groups"[21] -which is someone's personal website - it says it is curated by[22]. See the RSN discussion[23]. The article is full of violations of our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree fully with Dougweller.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment. Others here just might wonder why an editor who is so dilligent at editing out certain things because he deems them not worth mentioning would and (correct me if I'm wrong), twice revert my edit where I edited in the fact that Albert Stubblebine is married to Rima Laibow. Then add in info that he committed aldultery with a female psychiatrist ..... "13:21, 26 June 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,074 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (→‎Biography: divorced in 1994 for adultery (evidently with a female psychiatrist, unnamed))". So why is it more important to Dougweller that readers see he was divorced for adultery in 1994 than readers seeing and knowing that his current wife today is Rima Laibow who just happens to be a female psychiatrist? Just seems highly strange! (Boss Reality (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

It's all about sources. I wasted quite a bit of time trying to find a source that was reliable by our criteria to show the marriage - which I thought I'd noted was fairly obvious but we have this thing about sources for articles about living people. When you restored it with a citation tag I dropped my effort to keep this article following our guidelines as I don't expect it to remain. Of course if it does then it will have to follow our guidelines and policies. And surely you wouldn't want it to look as though he married without getting divorced? What I didn't try and do is use sources that suggest that the psychiatrist mentioned is Laibow. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strange how many keep votes spring up like desert flowers after a long drought. Look at Oxide313 Account created June 30th 2014, or Boss Reality account created June 17th 2014, or Brother Samson created April 13th 2014. Wondering if somebody is planting seeds and watering the desert?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Comment, Great point Tomwsulcer! If this is so then it's a great thing. There has been a long drought and if it's coming to an end then there's possibly hope for us all. People may actually be starting to wake up and get in and get involved. This should be pleasing to you because if the desert has flowers are sprouting up that means that there is still fertility. You'd benefit from that. Where there is no fertilty the place is barren. Where there is fertility the place has a chance to come alive. And, if people are starting to wake up then I'm glad to be in a world that is waking up. Where the opposite of that is the case then only those who have no idea of reality will be happy. Yours in peace, life, love and truth. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)) * KEEP - I believe that Rima Laibow is definitely credible enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. It will just take me and others a bit longer to establish a 'credible' layout under your Wikipedia standards. I'm sure you are familiar that independent people in any form of life are hard to reference as they are usually outside of the status quo. For example, I have Laibow's professional resume with me that lists a mountain of medical reports her name is attached too. However, since I cannot reference her resume, I need to dig vigorously to try and find where these are in databases. It's a hard process. I can assure you that Laibow's biography deserves to be included as a Wikipedia page, nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxide313 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC) {{spa|Oxide313}}[reply]

Comment: Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... Why not move it to a user-space sandbox until such a time that proper, reliable sources can establish her notability? WegianWarrior (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: User Oxide313 seems to be a WP:SPA, which is okay with me as long as the policies and guidelines are followed. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. I have noticed that my edits have been reversed a few times in different place regarding the following. * On the Rima Laibow page: Albert Stubblebine being a retired major general, her Current activities section and the content about her being a staff editor for The United States Independant. [24] ..... Well I can tell you that there are scores, scores and more articles of personalities that have their husbands, wifes, childen mentioned that have their occupation or reason for notability mentioned. Why does the case differ for Rima Laibow? And why is her working as Staff Editor for a news outlet not worthy of inclusion? Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Why the hell should we provide free publicity for a fringe conspiracy website? Unless and until reputable third-party sources consider such things of significance, they don't belong in the article. Along with the rest of the vacuous puffery you have been adding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:: Reply to AndyTheGrump, I totally disagree and dispute what you said,
Quote: Why the hell should we provide free publicity for a fringe conspiracy website? Unless and until reputable third-party sources consider such things of significance, they don't belong in the article. Along with the rest of the vacuous puffery you have been adding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Unquote.
There is no free publicity going on for a fringe conspiracy website. None at all. If that were the case then certain things for Alex Jones, Obama, Tom Jones etc etc would be free publicity. You're wrong on all counts my friend. Totally wrong! There are many good solid sources around. The issue here is that this article IMO is being attacked as the subject is deemed to be too controversial. And vacuous puffery can hardly be applied here. Articles about people no matter how contrioversial or how they turn the accepted truth on it's head have a place in Wikipedia. Yes Rima Laibow is a very controversial person. She is deliberately ignored by much of the main stream media because some may feel that she exposes certain things. I'm not her advocate here. I'm just pointing out what and how certain people feel. In spite of that she has found her way into some major book and magazine publications. Theres such a vast range of acceptablbe / notable and obviously some "out there" types of books and magazines that she has either contributed to or has been referenced in. We're looking at (*) medical, (*) nutritional, (*) health, (*) conspiracy, (*) UFO, (*) psychological, (*) political books and magazines. And we could be looking easily at something well over 100. She'll doublessly be referred to and quoted in many new publicatons for years to come. Have a look and do the homework. She has the profile of easily worthy note and prominence in the (*) vaccination awareness, (*) anti GM and (*) anti codex alimentarius movments. She's appeared in interviews by notable people and she's someone that certain people would love to silence. If what she is saying and what she stands for is wrong, bad, unpatriotic, or WHY then she still has a place in Wikipedia regardless (Boss Reality (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

If there are reliable sources regarding Dr Laibow, why are you still spamming the article with links to batshit-crazy conspiracy websites? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break (to made editing easier)[edit]

MORE INFO ON RIMA LAIBOW, THINGS TO LOOK AT
Here's a sample of what I have found on Microsoft Academic Search. I have included on Rima Laibow Talk Page as I don't want this page to be 3 miles long. I dare say there'll be more to come. The info & referencing is from this website
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/

Academic > Authors > Rima E. Laibow
Rima E. Laibow
Fields: Neuroscience
Publications: 7 | Citations: 27
Fields: Neuroscience
Collaborated with 6 co-authors from 1999 to 2005 | Cited by 16 authors
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/24403715/rima-e-laibow

(Boss Reality (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment All that work, and you have yet to show reliable, verifiable, independent sources that states that she is in fact notable.

Please read and understand the implications of WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:RELIABLE. If you are attempting to establish notability by digging up everything Laibow has written, said, or done to add to the article, you are in gross violation of WP:OR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WegianWarrior (talk • contribs)

Reply to WegianWarrior, I have shown reliable sources. Sadly and frustratingly with all that's been going on here, the (what I believe to be)censorship, itnetional or unintentional disruptive editing bordering on valdalism it's a task. And answer to suggestion that I'm trying to establih notability, well I believe I have already. Laibow is a prominent activist. She has been main figure in leading the Anti-Codex Alimentarius movement. Anyone in the anti GM, anti Codex, Vaccination awareness movements can tell you that. T'll have to find the other link where I read that she was on Oprah or some other prominent TV show. This might be a start for now.TV & Radio Oprah etc . The amount of books and articles she has contributed to or been referenced is astounding. A significant amount of them acceptable here. You know, we're probably looking at something like well over 100 easily. Before getting involved in this article, I had no idea! I neve doubted her notabilty but since doing a little research I've become much more informed about her.

Now in reply to your saying - Quote If you are attempting to establish notability by digging up everything Laibow has written, said, or done to add to the article, you are in gross violation of WP:OR Unquote, That's totally incorrect and uncalled for! I totally reject what your're suggesting. For starters, If I were to dig up everything that Dr Rima Laibow has written or where she's been referenced, I'd be doing six month task. The stuff keeps popping up all the time and we'd actually have to have another article made for that. NO! My reason for finding what I have found and puuting it here is for two reasons. One to give interested parties something to work with. And two to counteract what I see is the agenda against this article as per the first Delete vote that tried to make out she was some kind of obscure fring figure. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see a single reliable source stating that she is notable. I might have missed it in the avalanche of non-reliable sources you have posted... if so, please post what sources you have that are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and polices for establishing notability.

I also finds it amusing that you seem to have totally missed the point of my statement, so I'll repeat and rephrase for clarity: It seems to me that you are engaging in original research (please read that policy before answering) in order to create a synthesis - that is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. As you can tell if you actually read those policies, that is a big no-no.

WegianWarrior (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone expand on this - It has been reported that Rima Laibow had at some stage undertaken or attempted to undertake legal action against the U.S. Government over Codex. She also had been regularly attending the Codex meetings. An article by Natural News on April-11-2007stated that the Natural Solutions Foundation which she had founded was sponsoring a citzens petition to legally challenge the US Governments to harmonize with codex. The petition was signed by over 40,000 Americans that called for the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to heel over codex. Natural News Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff www.naturalnews.com/021788_health_natural_freedom.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}# About Dr. Rima Laibow Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff]

(Boss Reality (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia article content is based on reliable sources - not on the deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites. If you don't stop adding this bollocks to the article soon, you are liable to find yourself blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AndyTheGrump, I'm amazed at what you've said here , Quote Wikipedia article content is based on reliable sources - not on the deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites. If you don't stop adding this bollocks to the article soon, you are liable to find yourself blocked.AndyTheGrump Unquote, I'm not basing anything on "deranged rantings of batshit-crazy conspiracy websites." Totally uincorrect and below the belt here sir. For starters I'm not even doing that. And , the Natural News website www.naturalnews.com/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Natural News Website] is OK. It doesnt even come under the "Tree Hugger" category. The article here www.naturalnews.com/021788_health_natural_freedom.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}# About Dr. Rima Laibow Wednesday, April 11, 2007 by: NaturalNews staff] IMO is acceptable. Please stop this kind of attack on me. Not good my friend!!!! All I'm doing is trying to improve the article as we go forth and also make a point which I and others have which is the article is about a notable prominent and yes ...... I do admit, a sometimes controversial person. Thankyou (Boss Reality (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for confirming that you don't have the slightest understanding of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with ATG here. Natural News as RS??? As stated above by WW, please read the appropriate policies and provide reliable sources that satisfy the notability guidelines / policies and provide an explanation of how you think the content of the sources satisfies the guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I too have seen more to confirm that this article is a highly notable article. Searching in other places too just brings up more. Well done to originator of this article for the efforts. (Starman005 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Cannot see extensive coverage in reliable and independent sources. Note to Boss Reality She is ignored by mainstream media because the views she espouses are crackers, and yes, you are being her advocate here.94.195.46.205 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well 94.195.46.205, she may or may not be crackers. But the rest of what you said isn't even worthwhile responding to. Thanks anyway (Boss Reality (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment to senior site staff, Having looked around and also having had second opinion from someone who is an expert on these things, I now believe that censorship has infected Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia need to have a disclaimer, warning process or something to advise article creators that certain articles about supposedly controversial people are unsuitable? If that is so then there needs to be a warning about that. This article has been deliberately and selectivly edited in a way to make it seem less notable. There have been silly remarks made that make me almost wonder there are juveniles editing here. There has even been an experienced editor that has on more than one occasion deleted references to Rima Laibow on Albert Stubblebine's page and while doing this has chosen to edit in an article about him committing adultery with a female psychiatrist. Anyone would be able to work out that the other party in the adultery act was Laibow. I could care less about that. And if that's relevant to the context of an article then it belongs in it. Rima Laibow if she has done something that is immoral shouldn't be excluded from this process because that in effect is censorship as well. Certain controversial people are deliberately ignored strategically by the main stream media. Anyone involved with the entertainment business knows, any publicity can be good publicity when it draws attention to the subject. That being the case it's more think likely and highly probable that a lot more of Dr Rima Laibow's activities have been deliberately not reported on for that very reason. And yet I've found other news articles written about her as well as a multitude of books that she has contributed to as well as ones that reference her. Some self published and some not.
Let's take the middle ground here and say that Rima Laibow may be right or she may be wrong about what she says about the pharmaceutical industry and what it's up to, and other controversial things. Either way there are going to be certain parties and individuals that don't like what she says and will try to silence this. Censorship is one way and another is by ridicule.
If Wikipedia is going to have a censorshop process then there should be an incication that this is a policy. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2014 (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. Although a majority of commenters !voted to delete the article, the arguments of the keep proponents were far stronger. Evidence was provided that there has been substantial third party coverage of this person in several countries over a period of several years, contributing to this person meeting WP:GNG. Reasons for deletion were given as failing to meet WP:PROF (which is overruled by the GNG) and a claim that the boy's work is twaddle. Even if this was true (without any proof, this is also original research), it is still not a reason to overrule GNG (if there are concerns about his work which are reported in reliable sources, these should be included in the article). Number 5 7 11:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barnett[edit]

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

This seems to be a recreation of a previously deleted page. All of the sources cited here are of the same kind discussed in that deletion discussion, and I don't see that anything has changed. (The only new addition seems to be a credulous Huffington Post human interest story, and an even more credulous paragraph in the BBC saying that the subject is "tipped for a Nobel Prize", which doesn't even pass the sniff test.) The subject clearly fails WP:PROF at the moment, and the arguments against WP:GNG (which the closing admin described at a "cut and dry" case) seem to apply equally to the present article as they did to the original one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. One article on GS with 17 cites. Not enough to pass WP:Prof. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Still not notable. Ozob (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the sources appear to be in good places (although, Daily Mail?) but their contents are very soft and the claims in the article are ridiculous. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to my comment, since the discussion has progressed a lot since then: this discussion, and the sources linked in the comment of 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) by Agricola44, show the ugly direction that this article has the potential to head in if we were to provide appropriate neutral coverage of the subject rather than simply taking his mother's claims at face value as many of the sources have done (making them lose reliability in my view). I don't think we want to do that to the WP:BLP of a minor, so deleting the article seems a much better solution. And I suggest that this discussion be courtesy-blanked after it is over. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FFS. Come back in 40 years time, maybe. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to delete anyway, so there's really no point in my voting. However, I'd like to ask this question; how many years of news coverage will this person need to be the subject of before you decide he's notable? It's been three years now, and news coverage continues to sustain about him. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When he satisfies the relevant content guideline. Viral human interest stories do not establish notability. What is needed for GNG would be serious journalism. How do I know this isn't serious? Well one of the recent references in the article has a link in the sidebar to a story about a YouTube video of a kitten attacking a Doberman. That's generally a clue. Next thing, you'll be insisting we have an article about that kitten. Also, one of the referenced articles suggests that Mr. Barnett is likely to receive a Nobel Prize. That simply isn't credible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for you to get testy. That aside, sidebar articles have nothing to do with the article itself. Evaluating an article based on what is in the sidebar of a major news site isn't going to gain traction. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that so far none of the sources presented seem to be serious journalistic sources. They all suffer from the same basic problem of credulously repeating the same problematic facts. They uncritically accept that Mr. Barnett has formulated a scientific theory that contradicts Einstein's theory of gravitation. Some sources have gone so far as to place a Nobel Prize in the subject's future. But nowhere is there any, well, journalism. You know? The kind where credentialed experts and stuff are interviewed to support the claims in the article. It's all just random web/newsmedia sensationalism, basically just echoing the same old unsourced claims. Three years ago, in the initial AfD, you also seemed to have trouble identifying serious sources. The "kitten test", although droll, really rams this point home I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. The claim of notability seems to revolve around having published a Phys Rev paper at a very early age. When you look closer, you find Yogesh Joglekar (a physics professor) is the corresponding author. It is almost certain that Joglekar included Barnett as a secondary rather than vice versa. There might be some claim if the latter were the case (e.g. youngest person to publish a physics paper), but that would require proof that may be difficult to obtain and is certainly not here at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The importance of the paper isn't which of the co-authors, that is mentioned first, the importance is, that it's a paper about Barnetts discovery, it's not the discovery of Joglekar other than he put up the challenge for young Barnett to solve (no one had solved that challenge before, not even Joglekar). Have you at all read the biography about young Barnett? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that he's notable because of a single paper with only 17 citations, that's a losing argument to begin with. The fact that he isn't even the primary author is just gravy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An autistic boy with an IQ higher than Einstein's who was admitted to a university aged 10 is surely notable enough to merit a place on Wikipedia. I realize I am probably taking the losing side but I really don't think this is an "FFS" case. Declaration: I am affected by autism too. Viewfinder (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's especially relevant to the question of his notability for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, but his IQ is only higher than Einstein's according to a sensationalistic article in the Daily Mail. This is probably not the most reliable source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High IQ and very early college admission are amazing, but they're not notable in the sense of satisfying one of the many possible WP notability conditions. The sources that do exist are completely sensationalized, for example the BBC blurb that places a Nobel in his future before he's even finished his education and the Daily Mail article that gushes about his theory of relativity but actually shows a picture of him doing introductory calculus. (The latter also says he has "debunked" the Big Bang theory, which is nonsense.) Journalists generally have little to no understanding of science or mathematics, nor of the current states of these fields and it really shows in these pieces. Jacob seems to have made impressive achievements for his age, but we do not make a habit of lowering the notability bar to compensate for age. Agricola44 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I think that given the nature of these sources they must be considered unreliable despite where they were published. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Physical Review A is unreliable? Interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are very clearly talking about the BBC and DailyMail pieces, which is what "these sources" refers to. It is equally clear, if one reads them, that they are unreliable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

All these sources have now been determined to contain sensationalized falsehoods (see wall of text below). They probably cannot be considered to be reliable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. In looking back at the first AfD from several years ago, it appears the discussion is very much the same and on the same sources. Doesn't look like anything much has changed. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sources. That's what we work on. That's what this has. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these sources have now been determined to contain sensationalized falsehoods (see wall of text below). They probably cannot be considered to be reliable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I found this article from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 19#Jacob Barnett and have contacted the editors who participated in or closed the DRV. Sources (ordered chronologically):
1. McFeely, Dan (2011-03-20). "Genius at work: 12-year-old is studying at IUPUI". The Indianapolis Star. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
2. Castillo, Michelle (2011-03-26). "12-Year-Old Genius Expands Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Thinks He Can Prove It Wrong". Time. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
3. Masters, Alex (2013-02-07). "Teenage genius Jacob Barnett wants you to stop learning and start thinking, in this inspiring TEDx talk". The Independent (blog). Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
4. Weddle, Eric (2013-04-08). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". The Indianapolis Star (via USA Today). Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
5. Carpenter, Louise (2013-04-20). "Is Jacob Barnett the next Einstein?". The Times. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
6. Barnett, Kristine (2013-04-24). "One in a Million: An Inspirational Story". Indianapolis Monthly. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
7. Seaberg, Maureen (2013-05-16). "The Spark and Synesthesia Savant: Jake Barnett Calculates Using Colored Shapes". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
8. "Kristine Barnett, mom of autistic child, encourages parents to find child's 'spark'". WRTV. 2013-05-30. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
9. Dolak, Kevin (2013-05-30). "U.S. Autistic Teen Working on Astrophysics Ph.D." ABC News (via Good Morning America). Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
10. Moore, Charlotte (2013-06-08). "The Spark, by Kristine Barnett - review". The Spectator (book review). Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
11. "Autistic boy genius pursues physics passion at Perimeter Institute: Chose Waterloo institution over Cambridge and Stanford". CBC News. 2013-09-09. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
12. Mercer, Greg (2013-09-22). "Teen prodigy finds home at Waterloo's Perimeter Institute". Waterloo Region Record (via the Toronto Star). Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
13. Commisso, Christina (2013-10-01). "15-year-old Jacob Barnett: One of the world's most promising physicists". CTV News. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
14. Crabb, Kara (2013-10-10). "Jacob Barnett Is Even Better in 3D". Vice. Archived from the original on 2014-06-28. Retrieved 2014-06-28.
Interviews:
1. He was interviewed on the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News on March 30, 2011. See http://video.foxnews.com/v/4616857/beck-12-year-old-child-prodigy-aims-high/.
2. He was profiled in 60 Minutes, which is broadcast on the CBS television network on January 17, 2012. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/
3. He was interviewed by the BBC on May 10, 2013. See http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22477958.
4. He was interviewed on Katie by Katie Couric on May 30, 2013. See http://katiecouric.com/2013/05/30/living-with-autism/.
5. He was interviewed by CTV News on October 1, 2013. See http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/15-year-old-jacob-barnett-one-of-the-world-s-most-promising-physicists-1.1479602.
Analysis of sources:
- The sources span from March 2011 to October 2013.
- The sources are international.
- The Independent, The Times, and The Spectator are from Britain.
- CBC News, CTV News, and the Waterloo Region Record are from Canada.
- The Indianapolis Star, Time magazine, and ABC News are from the United States.
Guideline and policy analysis:
One comment above says that since the previous AfD, not much has changed in terms of sources. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett was closed on 6 April 2011. And 12 of the 14 sources I listed above were published after the first AfD was closed.
WP:PROF, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), is cited in the nomination statement and by one of the delete votes. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria states that "Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."
WP:BIO redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
The sources cited above are sufficient for Jacob Barnett to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Therefore, the subject is notable and this article should be kept.
Cunard (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this analysis is that it relies on an unsupported analysis of the word "presumed" in the notability guideline. From that guideline (WP:GNG): "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." There is no doubt that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources. However, on what basis do we conclude that the subject is notable. Is he notable as a scientist? If so, the appropriate standard for having an article in an encyclopedia is not how many tabloid human interest stories the subject has appeared in, but whether the subject "[has] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (from WP:PROF). None of the sources I have seen make a credible claim of this. If, instead, we are to argue that he is notable not as a scientist, but as a gifted child with autism, then we would probably need case studies from the peer reviewed psychology literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat that not much has changed. Every single source Cunard lists above is sensationalized puff. Specifically,

repeats the nonsense about "debunking" Big Bang: "If not the big bang, then how did the universe come about? 'I'm still working on that,' he said. 'I have an idea, but . . . I'm still working out the details.'"
repeats the nonsense about disproving Einstein's relativity: "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."
"At the tender age of 13, this teenage astrophysicist published research materials on the Big Bang and Special Relativity" – this is false. The author of this piece clearly does not understand what constitutes scientific publication. This work has evidently never appeared in a mainstream, peer-reviewed physics journal in the 3 years since all of this hype started.
more nonsense on besting Einstein: "one who calculated his own expanded theory of relativity" – this article is an advert for his mother's book
nonsense about Nobel prize work at age 14: "he is tipped to be a future Nobel prize winner"
PR article written by his mother promoting her book on him: "his mom hopes the publicity will be behind them" – this seems to be frequently contradicted by the organized PR machinery that promotes him and his mother
"he's in line for the Nobel Prize one day" – promotion of mother's book
human interest article with statements like "He taught himself calculus in two weeks" and "I started doing research when I was 12 years old, and I actually published a paper"
this article says his IQ is so high it can't actually be measured: "Several IQ tests have been administered on him, and Barnett said that it's been concluded that he can't be measured, so he is always given the top number" – promotes mother's book
advert for mother's book
higher IQ than Einstein etc etc
higher IQ than Einstein, mother's book, etc.
more nonsense about Einstein: "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking" – again out of context about work that has never been published or scrutinized
an interview with a "journalist" who "decided to smoke some regular old cannabis, to make things a little more kooky" – goes downhill from here with factual mistakes and such

In summary, I think all of these pieces have been misrepresented as reliable sources. They are not. Indeed, they are the kind of writings that render me embarrassed for the profession of "journalism", such as it has become. My final impression after having looked at this a bit more is that there is a coordinated PR campaign to promote Jacob's story and his mother's book. The people writing these stories continue to flippantly carry forward the nonsensical scientific claims, in part because they themselves do not understand how scientific work is vetted. Jacob may very well have a bright future and go on to do notable work that will garner him honors...but he has not done so yet. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Cunard said. Fantastic analysis. The fact that this young man has been receiving such coverage and such coverage has sustained for three years now is in and of itself enough to be notable, regardless of WP:PROF. To be clear; keep for my reasons stated well above and for what Cunard has noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this analysis is very misleading, which is obvious if one reads the pieces Cunard listed. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly enough non-sensationalistic coverage to qualify for GNG.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cunard for your thorough research. Clearly there has been far more media coverage of this guy than the mere "sensationalist article in the Daily Mail" claimed by our opponents. Viewfinder (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's not only 1 sensationalistic puff piece, there are more than a dozen. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Can someone please identify a source that is non-sensationalistic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources reported above are merely human interest trivia and do not establish the substantial career achievement expected for a Wikipedia BLP. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. I note that the media like to beat up stories like An exceptionally simple theory of everything. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Exceptional child prodigy associated with autism is "trivial"? I beg to disagree. Viewfinder (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional? His name on one paper with 17 cites shows only minor scientific impact yet. Come back when he has 1700 cites, then he may be exceptional. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Exceptional? Yes, this kid is exceptional. I am not arguing the case from the point of view of scientific impact, I am arguing that he has generated sufficient international non-sensationalist human interest to merit an article. Viewfinder (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have stated that you have autism yourself. I commend you for declaring your COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for that. Of course autism disqualifies me from being the final arbiter in this debate! But it does generate my interest and inclination to participate, I don't like to see it dismissed with expletives. Viewfinder (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? No expletives from me! Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please see above. I give specific details showing every one of those 14 sources is sensationalized with the same nonsense about disproving Einstein, debunking Big Bang, and promoting mother's book. Agricola44 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could respond by suggesting that there might possibly be a clique of wikipedians who are determined to obstruct and knock the publication of this kid's story. Some people don't seem to be able to abide by unusual abilities, are they frightened of them? Of course his mother is doing her best to promote him, would not you if he were your child? Agreed about some of the hype and lack of scientific knowledge of some of the writers, but the fact that he has been covered by so many internationally renowned publications should in itself be sufficient to establish him as notable. I agree that such publications sometimes publish trivia which should be excluded from WP:GNG per WP:IINFO but I don't think this case of child prodigy is trivial. It neatly highlights the fact that special abilitites can be associated with more general disability. Viewfinder (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it's not helpful to personalized this discussion as you have done. The "clique of Wikipedians" you speak of seem to be those with some scientific training participating in the discussion. The promotion of the mother's book, and credulous acceptance of her ludicrous claims smacks of scientific fraud, at least to some of us that are used to seeing such things first hand. After all, what's the point in going through the messy and difficult process of scientific peer review when it's so much easier just to go on Oprah? I'm not trying to denigrate Mr. Barnett in any of this. No doubt he is a very talented young man. Nor am I trying to detract from you personally drawing inspiration from him. However, I think that his scientific credentials fall far short of what would merit an encyclopedia article at this point, and the sources should be setting off alarm bells. Agricola summarized this nicely. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, I am not citing scientific impact in support of my defence of the article. You are implicitly accusing multiple renowned publications of scientific fraud. Strong stuff. Even if you're right, I still think there is sufficient evidence of child prodigy to support the article. It's not up to me, but I hope Wikipedia will agree. The kid is an inspiration who deserves an article. Viewfinder (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the "journalists": not fraud so much as complete scientific ignorance combined with circulation-promoting sensationalism. The claims of this boy are either outlandish, ipso facto nonsense or results that change the fundamental basis of all of physics (Einstein wrong, Big Bang wrong, etc). There is not a shred of evidence of the latter. In fact, given that the claims have been floating around for several years and there have been no peer reviewed papers, it is starting to look like nothing more than a PR machine promoting a crank (especially with mother's book). Reminds somewhat of the Haramein Afds. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he's notable because he is a child prodigy, then you should be looking for reliable sources on that phenomenon. There are developmental psychologists who study this. They have written papers in the peer reviewed literature. No doubt they have given interviews, or are willing to given interviews, with real journalists. Let's try finding sources like this before we jump to our own conclusions. A real article needs real sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for fraud, I was willing in the first AfD to apply a dose of Hanlon's razor and attribute the obviously wrong "facts" of the case to journalistic incompetence. However, the mother's cynical attempt to capitalize on it by flogging her new book in the media makes it all look pretty deliberate. We should have no part in this. WP:SOAP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second declaration: I had not heard of Barnett until I noticed him on AfD, I do occasionally look at these at random. I have no connection whatsoever with other users who are supporting his case. Viewfinder (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment because this seems to have passed by most people: It's a BLP. Of a minor. We don't have BLPs of minors unless they're very well supported. This is supported by normal-standard (i.e. extremely poor quality) science journalism. It's not well supported. He doesn't even remotely come close to meeting WP:PROF. Nor does being really intelligent necessarily mean that we can get our WP:CRYSTAL balls out and predict you'll have a good academic career - you need to be able to consistently channel that, and a bit of luck along the way doesn't hurt. There's no significant linking from other articles; it's one off trivial nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point. A vulnerable minor is being exploited and Wikipedia should have no part in it. There is a case for WP:Speedy delete on grounds of WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

So encouraging your autistic child to pursue his special abilities is exploitation? Please quote the relevant BLP passage. Viewfinder (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Encouraging" by turning the kid into a media circus attraction in order to sell a book, you mean. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened by the vicious attacks on the kid's mother, science journalism in general and claims that infant prodigy is anything other than trivial. I don't think I like this place. Viewfinder (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly very sorry you feel this way. Facts and evidence (like their broader aspects of science) are cold, emotionless entities. I don't think you should be throwing around accusations like "vicious", when the observations regarding the journalistic aspect are obvious and undeniable to anyone who has some passing familiarity with science. Mother's motives are not known, of course, but the systematic "interview shopping" of every network outlet here and abroad, coupled with the promotional nature and the offer of book sales certainly gives the appearance of what has been described here. As for being a prodigy, this is not one of Wikipedia's conditions of notability and, if you don't like it, you'll have to argue that at a much higher level than this AfD. What I find a little sad is that the collusion involved in the many years of promoting this young man as a genius has led to expectations for his future that he will, in all likelihood, never be able to live up to in the "open league" of scientific research. He very well may merit a WP page in the future, but at this time, he does not actually have a record of accomplishment that is even close to the average research scientist. You can convince yourself that this is true by looking at his publication record: 1 paper cited less than 20 times, on which he is not the principal author. Agricola44 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I feel this way because I see SB refer to mother's cynical attempt to flog her new book in the media and BBB use the uncivil expression FFS, then refer to "extremely poor" science journalism as "normal", which I see as nasty attacks on an individual and a profession respectively. Loads of people attempt to use journalists to sell their work, and very few succeed. Despite the scientific flaws, that the mother has succeeded must surely count for something. Perhaps these journalists admire her determination to publicize her case of autistic child prodigy and frankly I agree with them. Go, Kristine. Go. Viewfinder (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside for the moment what you see as distasteful argument, it appears that you're saying you believe Barnett should have a WP page because his mother succeeded in some sense in bringing the story of her son, an autistic prodigy, to a wide audience and that other editors should be more sympathetic to the argument that this very redeeming aspect of the case should "count" for enough to have a page. Is that more-or-less it? Agricola44 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It comes down to whether the article should be a WP:NOT (especially WP:IINFO) exception to WP:GNG. The subject has surely had enough coverage in renowned and independent sources to pass WP:GNG - unless we consider the material to be trivial, in which case the article is defeated by WP:NOT. I don't think this autistic child prodigy case is trivial. Forget about WP:PROF, I am not contesting that. Viewfinder (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder (talk · contribs) I am personally acquainted with some very good science journalists who work for the BBC and broadsheet newspapers, who at least try to get it right. Science journalism varies in quality. I often see shoddy journalism that is sensationalist (generally exaggerated for effect) and inaccurate (because the journalist clearly plainly just doesn't understand what he's talking about). The Daily Mail is usually the worst. Even an apparently reputable magazine such as New Scientist regularly publishes some highly speculative articles. To add to my point above, the article is an orphan, and is worthless. I'm sure his mum loves him and is a nice person - but that is of no relevance whatsoever. FFS is entirely appropriate when people need WP:TROUTING for their bizarre ramblings that bear no resemblance whatsoever to policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, the article passes WP:GNG policy unless it is defeated by WP:NOT policy. Viewfinder (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I further suggest that if a respected scientist has published a statement criticizing the media coverage of Barnett for its sensationalism and inaccuracy, it would be appropriate to include that statement in the article. Articles should not be deleted because a clique of Wikipedians, who accuse their opponents of "bizarre ramblings", don't happen to like them. Viewfinder (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, such a source might actually make the subject more notable, since he is to my mind only possibly notable as a media phenomenon. As far as I am aware, his case has not been taken up by any media studies. However, the degeneration of quality in science journalism giving way to PR machines of this kind is a documented phenomenon. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI BBB, Wikipedia policy at WP:Orphan#Various_ways_to_de-orphan states that "an article being an orphan is not in any way, shape, or form a criterion for deletion". In any case, the article is not worthless as it can still be found by search engines. Viewfinder (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on professors are linked to and from articles on their field of study. Since this teenager is hasn't made any significant contributions to science (just as one swallow doesn't make a summer, a single paper isn't an oeuvre of work), the only thing you can apparently find to link from is his year of birth. That's just pure trivia. Oh and how I wish sometimes an actual trout would come out of one's computer and slap one in the face/gonads if one's deserving of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time BBB, I am not basing my case on scientific impact. I am basing it on extensive coverage by so many well known publications. If an article being orphaned implied that it was pure trivia, then it being an orphan would be grounds for deletion. It is not. It does not necessarily follow from its coverage that it is not trivia, but I happen to agree with Charlotte Moore who writes in the Spectator that "(Kristine) is an admirable woman, Jacob is a remarkable boy and their story deserves to be told". One doesn't write that about trivia. I won't send you a trout because an adversary should not be slapped in the face just because (s)he happens not to be in agreement. Viewfinder (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am going to summarize matters, as best as I can, then step away and let nature take its course. Sometime around 2010, an established, well-known professor, Scott Tremaine said some kind words about Jacob to his mother. As best as I can gather, Tremaine said he is (1) "impressed by [Jacob's] interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far” and that (2) Jacob is working on "several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics” and finally (3) that anyone who actually solves any of these problems would "be in line for a Nobel Prize”. Note that (1) is a kindly remark of encouragement for Jacob, while (2) and (3), being about relativity, Big Bang et al, are true statements about the subject of Physics having nothing to do with Jacob per se. Jacob has not solved such problems, nor did Tremaine say/imply/assert that Jacob did. Rather, these words appear to have been remanufactured and further evolved in numerous (i.e. more occasions than Cunard listed above) media pieces that tell unfamiliar readers in so many words that Jacob has in fact done these things and is simply awaiting his prize. We can speculate on the parties involved and their motives, but the sensationalized nature of the media coverage and its utter fantasy are clear to anyone who has some familiarity with Physics. There is now a book, written by his mother, Kristine, that is regularly promoted in the more recent articles, as well as a foundation, road tour, pending recreational center, all of which appear to be run by Kristine, as well as other media promotion, for example a Facebook page that lists Jacob's title as "public figure". Jacob, the child prodigy who has allegedly disproved Einstein, debunked Big Bang, etc etc has become an industry – except none of it is true! This case may be an instance of the well-known child-industrial complex which finds collusion among media, business, and stage moms to manufacture a public image of a child (e.g. JonBenét Ramsey), but again, I think the main problem here is that Jacob's entire image has been fabricated (intentionally or not) around a series of demonstrable falsehoods that have been carried through by the media in numerous pieces. As was said above, the "manufactured image" aspect might be material for a WP article (since there are obviously many sources), but this will be very unflattering, perhaps even damaging to Jacob, a living person and a minor to boot, and any future he might have as an actual scientist. Any article on Jacob would necessarily have to emphasize this aspect, because there is next to nothing to say about his scientific achievements (he is listed on a single physics paper on which he is not the principal author). I have already !voted above an leave it to the closing admin to synthesize a decision. Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Agricola for your helpful and constructive summary. Please now allow me to sum up for the defence. I agree with you about Tremaine; Barnett's scientific impact to date does not automatically qualify him for an article, let alone debunks relativity or the Big Bang or places him in line for any Nobel Prize. His IQ cannot be definitively compared with Einstein as the latter was never tested, but it is comparable with estimates of Einstein's IQ. I have been checking the sources more carefully, and yes some of them, including MailOnLine, are hyped up. But far from emphasizing exaggerations and falsehoods, most of them concentrate on the kid's story, the remarkable story of the autistic child prodigy with special abilities that got him admitted to university as a pre-teen. Far from being trivial, his story as told by these sources should of be considerable interest to anyone who, like me, is affected by high functioning autism or Asperger's syndrome. I don't think they manufacture a false image; they provide the kind of material that, in my opinion, should qualify him for an article here. Provided it steers clear of any hype, it should not be unflattering or damaging. As Charlotte Moore writes, it is a story which deserves to be told. At the very least, I propose that supporters of the article, like Cunard, Hammersoft and myself, be given time to improve it. Viewfinder (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with what you've said regarding the human interest here. However, the impasse is that these dozens of articles are all filled with fantastic assertions about Jacob's accomplishments that are patently false. I don't think it is intellectually honest for any of us to try to explain this away. If you want to use these pieces as sources, you will have to include the "manufactured image" aspect of the story and how it is based on shoddy journalism, promotion, and sensationalism – for the very fact that this was the entire basis for writing these stories in the first place! (Otherwise, Jacob is just another high-functioning individual with autism, who would not be of interest to the media sensationalists.) The entire image is founded on these (false) claims and to omit them would be blatant WP:UNDUE. The quicksand here is that including this material will paint his mother and very likely himself in a very bad light. Sourcing rules are even more strict, since he's a living person. I don't know how the closing admin will rule in this case, but if the article is kept, you may be unhappy with the way the content will necessarily evolve. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Where are the patent falsehoods here? Or here? Or here? Please tell me. Viewfinder (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are a little less egregious, but all three still carry components of the larger myth forward: number (1) claims Jacob's IQ is too high to be tested, mentions his original theory in astrophysics, and Nobel; number (2) blatantly misquotes Tremaine ("[Jacob] built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking") and calls him one of "the world's most promising physicists" (this is in the title, and is obviously false); and number (3) reiterates Jacob's contention that his IQ is too high to be measured ("Barnett said that it's been concluded that he can't be measured, so he is always given the top number"). I have no doubt that another few dozen stories like these could be found. All build upon the myth. I'm starting to feel a level of sorrow for Jacob, as he inevitably will not be able to live up to the expectations that have been built for him. Agricola44 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The first is a book review. This is fine as a secondary source about the book, but its authority on the subject of this AfD flows entirely from that book. Of the few solid facts in the second reference, at least one of them is wrong: Scott Tremaine is not a Princeton University professor. He is at IAS instead. These are the kinds of simple factual errors that real journalists try to address. But it gets much worse: that article is filled with unsupported rampant speculation. Even the title is grossly misleading. The third source seems mostly ok and tells a nice story, but remove the speculation about his IQ and it's hard to see how this conveys any notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I can agree that these claims are more promotional than encyclopaedic, I don't think they are patently false. IQ becomes more subjective as we drop off the high end of the curve, perhaps to the point where measuring it definitively becomes arguably impossible. (If Einstein were reincarnated and tested, one could still argue indefinitely about who is more intelligent.) Can you be sure that Barnett did not create original theory ground breaking mathematical models? It is subjective whether or not he is one of the world's most promising physicists. Moore mentions Nobel, possibly hinting but certainly not asserting that Barnett is in line. She may not always get it 100% right but she is a respected author and I am sure she would not turn out patent falsehoods. Anyway lets try and find some things we can agree about. How about these...

His diagnosis with moderate to severe autism aged 2, when he was thought to be lost
The importance of the part played by his mother in recovering him
His development of prodigious intelligence, comparable to that of Einstein
He admission to university while still a pre-teen
His specific interest in astrophysics
His admission to the Perimeter Institute aged 15
His work in fields which, if he solved them, would put him in line for a Nobel prize. (Tremaine)

These surely exceptional and verifiable claims about him, exceptional enough for general notability beyond trivia, are common to many of the sources and can be put together into a Wikipedia article. If the case can be made and accepted that he would benefit from less publicity then perhaps we should be cautious about adding to it, but he is inspirational and I at least hope the article is not deleted on the grounds that his story is trivial. Viewfinder (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only observe that you're now drifting closer to these same (trashy, pardon) journalistic tendencies. We're not going to delve into the esoterica of IQ testing here; none of the bullet points you mention (impressive as they are) satisfies long-standing WP notability requirements; nor will we jump 30 or 40 thousand steps ahead and repeat the absurd speculation on a Nobel prize. To answer your question, yes, I am absolutely sure that Barnett did not create original ground-breaking mathematical models expanding Einstein's relativity, refuting the Big Bang, or explaining any other important problem in physics, otherwise Tremaine or one of Jacob's handlers at any of the institutions he's been at would have been certain to shepherd such work into publication. This is absolutely the way organized science works. I've hesitated to mention this, but might as well (since it seems that we're now circling back to argue that Jacob really may have made such contributions to physics): Phil Plait wrote a short Discover piece on this very case: i.e. how the media has misreported/misrepresented Jacob's accomplishments in physics. ~~I'm guessing there may be other observations like this, though I have not looked.~~<added>Here is another from Steven Novella.</added> I stick with my conclusion that Jacob does not show the kind of notability we need from the technical standpoint and that the sources we've all seen, numerous as they are, are blatantly unreliable pieces of journalistic sensationalism. Agricola44 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

And let me add one anecdote if you still doubt that Jacob's mentors would, in fact, have shepherded real work into publication, were it to have been genuine. Emily Rosa was in 6th grade when she was able to devise and carry out a series of tests conclusively debunking Therapeutic touch. Dr Stephen Barrett helped her complete the work and write it up for publication. It appeared in JAMA (1998; 279(13):1005–1010) and has been cited >100 times. Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Re Nobel I am doing no more than quoting Tremaine. I completely agree with Plait about proving relativity wrong, and I accept that it is unlikely that Barnett has broken any new ground of significant consequence. So I agree that the article fails WP:PROF. But hardly any of Cunard's sources make such claims. The majority of them can be summarized by my bullet points, which you do not appear to dispute. To dismiss "all" these sources as "patently false" and "blatantly unreliable pieces of journalistic sensationalism, is, pardon me, ridiculous. Evidently we must agree to disagree about this, but in my opinion the above bullet points, which can be widely linked to non-sensationalist material, show that Barnett is sufficiently exceptional and that there is more than enough general interest in him to pass our general notability guideline. Viewfinder (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but all of Cunards sources listed above make one or more of these outlandish claims regarding physics – I detailed each and every one above, if perhaps you haven't seen this yet – and this is the aspect that is sensational. I do not dispute the "human interest" of these stories, only that this aspect makes one notable. In the frame of reference of WP guidelines, it does not. Agricola44 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your various bullets in order:
(1) We apparently have only his mother's word about his diagnosis at the age of 2, and that lacks credibility. Certainly a parent of a very young child with autism spectrum might be told that their child may never be able to speak. This is easily distorted into the sensationalistic "thought to be lost" that most of the sources convey. Notice how the Tremaine quote was used to say all kinds of grandiose things about how Nobel Prizes sit in Mr. Barnett's future, etc. But as you presumably well know, the age of two is far too young an age to give anything close to a conclusive diagnosis on abnormalities in verbal and behavioral development. There is a substantially wide "normal" spectrum for behavior at this stage of child development. Standard tests for children of this age only establish risk level (low, moderate, high), and do not purport to be a life sentence.
(2) What role, if any, his mother played in his "recovery" again is pure speculation that seems to come from no recognizable authority. Perhaps he "recovered" as part of the normal developmental process. That's neither here nor there notability-wise, though, and we have no reliable sources for it anyway.
(3) His intelligence being comparable to Einstein seems quite speculative. On whose authority is this comparison being made? It seems to have been purely made up to grab headlines, as far as I can tell.
(4) It is actually perhaps more common than you think for pre-teens to be enrolled in university courses. I have personally taught three such "child prodigies" (none of whom are notable in the sense of Wikipedia — one of whom was even the sole author of a paper published in the Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, for what it's worth). My doctoral advisor was also a famous child prodigy (with a Wikipedia page) who had completed his own doctoral thesis before the age of 18.
(5) The only hard publication with his name attached to it is not a paper in astrophysics, but rather condensed matter physics. The rest is just hype.
(6) see (4).
(7) "His work in fields which, if he solved them, would put him in line for a Nobel prize." This is pure speculation and crystal balling. Without any body of work on which to make such a grand pronouncement, we could say this of basically anybody. That's the trouble with the Tremaine quote: it could have been made of my two-year old nephew who just drew a picture of a "black hole". Context is important, and if you saw (and understood) the YouTube video that Tremaine was actually responding to, you would also understand what he meant by that quote. Unfortunately, all trace of that video now seems to have been removed from the internet. (It used to be at the bottom of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369595/Jacob-Barnett-12-higher-IQ-Einstein-develops-theory-relativity.html and I commented on it in the previous AfD.) Ask yourself: why would mommy delete the video that Tremaine had said would lead to Jake's Nobel Prize? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be the last person still fighting for the article in a discussion that will soon be closed, but for what it's worth I will reply. (1)(2)(3)(5) You seem to be suggesting that his mother may have been serially lying to reporters. They're surely not all that gullible and her claims are likely to be verifiable. (4)(6) I am not sure where you are based but AFAIK prodigy on Barnett's level would be exceptional in the UK, no such case ever came to my knowledge in my student days. (7) He must be exceptionally smart to be working in these fields at such a young age, even if he never solves them. I don't think Tremaine would have said what he did if Barnett were not seriously working. Of course we call all draw a black hole.Viewfinder (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (1)(2)(3)(5), no I don't mean to say that Mrs. Barnett has been serially lying to reporters (at least not on purpose), but she is clearly at least as unreliable a source as anyone's mother would be. She also has a very concrete financial incentive not to be objective. I leave the deduction to better minds. Regarding the Tremaine quote: you're just wrong. But let's entertain the possibility that you're right. If one physicist earnestly made this assessment of the very young Jacob Barnett back in early 2011, surely there would be more famous physicists wanting to align themselves with the young wunderkind. Could not-a-one of these beneficient pinnacles of erudition be reached for comment by one of the many journalists eager to cover the story in the intervening 3 years?
Also, focusing not so much on the details of my responses to your bullet points but on their overall implications, the trouble with the sources concerning Jacob Barnett is that there is no recognizable authority in any of them. As far as I'm aware, no source has presented any credibly authoritative statement, with the exception of bare geographical facts that can be googled (e.g., that Barnett is at PI). Who was interviewed, besides Jacob and Mrs. Barnett, in the writing of the article? What gives them authority and what were they asked? A real news article contains this information (or it says "anonymous sources"). It tells you who was interviewed, often what question was asked. It does not attempt to distort or sensationalize what was put into print. By contrast, the original Tremaine quote was run in the Daily Mail. The context of the quote was quite open to interpretation at the time, and now any shred of context has quite literally has been eliminated. That seems to be the only iota of authority that exists in any of this. That. Daily. Mail. Quote. Think about that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not noteriety. He may at some time do some really great things, but he has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? WP:Notability has a clear definition: it's not about notoriety, nor about achievements, it's about the attention paid to them by independent sources: as we have here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the editors experienced in AfDs have noted above, the sources are of the National Enquirer type and are not reliable as required by Wikipedia policy. Therefore sound policy reasons exist for deleting the article in addition to concern for the welfare of the minor. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see the National Enquirer source that you're complaining of?

Secondly, even the use of a National Enquirer source would not invalidate the other sources that are here, from the likes of the Times, the BBC and the Huffington Post, all of which we consider to meet WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do these news articles meet WP:RS? What experts were interviewed in the process of writing the articles? Besides the mother, whose opinions are reflected in them? If they only represent the mother's opinion, then they are not independent. If they are the opinion only of the journalist writing them, then they are opinion pieces, [WP:NEWSORG|specifically exempted at WP:RS]]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having slogged through most of the long, drawn out analysis of the sources, the whole story is built on unsupported claims. I hope for his sake that Barnett has not actually said some of the thinks he is said to have said. He seems to be being exploited by others, and I think wikipedia should have no part in that. One paper does not make someone notable in any field of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is truly close to receiving a master's degree at 15 this is encouraging, but getting a masters degree does not make one notable. Publishing papers that change the field makes one notable, and he has not done that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the above comments, I stand by my position that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because he has received coverage in more than a dozen reliable sources. WP:PROF states (bolding added for emphasis):
Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.
WP:PROF permits articles on academics who pass other notability criteria. I am unswayed by the attempt at dismissing the sources as sensationalist or advertisements. The sources are from reliable publications who have reputations for fact-checking. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require biographical subjects to publish or receive coverage in academic journals.
David Eppstein wrote above about "the ugly direction that this article has the potential to head in" to achieve compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. He based his view on Agricola44's sources posted at 19:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC). Two sources were posted:
1. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/boy-genius/ a self-published source by Steven Novella. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources states (bolding added for emphasis):
  Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.
2. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/ – a Badastronomy.com blog post by Phil Plait and published in Discover Magazine. The source's most negative part about Barnett is saying Barnett won't prove relativity wrong:
  Barnett may very well be a genius, and may very well rewrite a lot of physics… as, no doubt, future generations of genius scientists will. But one thing they won’t do is prove relativity wrong.
  Bold statement? Not really. We know relativity is right. It may be incomplete, but it’s not wrong.
  This article cannot be considered to be negative coverage about the subject.
If sources that are not self-published have negative coverage of Barnett and pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, then they would be accorded their due weight in the article per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Otherwise, the article will not have negative coverage per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, which says (bolding added for emphasis; quote slightly edited to remove parentheticals):
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.
I agree with David Eppstein's request for courtesy blanking after the AfD is closed. Negative unsourced speculation such as this statement and this statement are hurtful to the subject's mother and violate BLP. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if those balancing sources are disallowed, we have a problem. Per WP:NPOV we must cover subjects neutrally. But we seem to have a clear consensus here that the other sources that we have are biased, from the mother's point of view, telling only the hyped-up side of the story without any balance pointing out that his accomplishments so far are not particularly unusual and that Tremaine's quote has been taken very far out of context. (For one thing, it is not about the paper whose description it immediately follows in our article.) If we add those sources we have a BLP problem because they are of dubious reliability. If we don't add them we have an NPOV problem because then we will be as guilty as BBC etc of falling for the hype and providing no balance. Both BLP and NPOV trump GNG. So the only reasonable outcome seems to me that if we can't have an article that meets our policies we shouldn't have an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, that is a misread of WP:NPOV. The lead of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states (bolding added for emphasis): "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
NPOV is not violated if viewpoints present only in unreliable sources are not included in the article. If the so-called "balancing sources" are not reliable sources, then to use them in the article would be a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
If "balancing sources" that pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources can be found, then their inclusion in the article would comply with BLP and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, which says (bolding added for emphasis), "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I think that your argument here, linking to WP:Verifiability but making the link text be "published by reliable sources", is highly problematic in this case when we have strong reason to disbelieve those sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if Mrs Barnett were as dishonest as some contributors (notably SB and DE) are implying, then that would have been exposed long ago and the media would have stopped publicizing her. Viewfinder (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eppstein. These sources also seem to be the only ones in the discussion where there is any clear source of authority, besides the mother. This was "exposed long ago", but I think you give the media too much credit if you think it stops repeating long ago debunked material. Remember global warming? And that's something that actually matters. Why do you think there would be any interest in debunking a puff human interest piece? (Also, writing something negative about Barnett isn't likely to sell papers or books, by the way.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Which "more than a dozen sources" are reliable? Certainly not all of the sources you have listed can be thought of as reliable, as some of them repeat claims that are obviously wrong ("disproved Einstein's theory", etc). At least one of these sources even got easily verifiable "facts" wrong (academic affiliation of Scott Tremaine), and I cannot seem to find a published correction. Can you please narrow down which sources you believe are reliable, and on what basis you come to this conclusion? Please indicate on what authority the article draws (e.g., well-known child psychologist, interview with astrophysicist, etc.). That is the kind of authority that is needed for a BLP article. Putting up a wall of google search results just because you assume that one of them must stick is not an acceptable way of ascertaining reliability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Solid arguments have been given for deletion, and the counterarguments do not come close to refuting those arguments. This subject needs to wait until real notability is established (most likely years later, if ever.) Rschwieb (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A strong and unsupported statement. Putting aside our personal points of view on the quality and merit of that publicity, does not the fact that the subject has had so much publicity in so many well known publications establish at least some real notability? WP:GNG again. Viewfinder (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires reliable sources. So far no one has found any, just unsourced opinion articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are challenging the reliability not just of the subject's mother, but of many internationally known publications, with plenty of fact checking resources. All of them are wrong and you are right? Strong stuff. Viewfinder (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you mean plenty of absence of fact checking: disproved Einstein, debunked Big Bang, IQ so high it can't be measured, etc – yes, these are indeed wrong. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Despite repeated attempts, the "keep" voters have refused to identify a single source whose reputation for fact checking ensures its reliability. So how about the BBC? This has probably the best reputation for fact checking of any of the sources so far mentioned. But that article asserts: "A teenager who was diagnosed with autism and told he would never be able to read has been tipped as a future Nobel prize winner." How do you defend this fact? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a greater or lesser amount of hype in most articles, they are after all under pressure to sell. I agree that the BBC, Time and MailOnLine have done Jacob no favours by misconstruing what Tremaine said. But yesterday I identified three articles which, although not 100% accurate, concentrate on his extraordinary story, which is credible and deserves to be told. Viewfinder (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"pressure to sell" does not justify shoddy, sensationalism. As for "deserves to be told", you've just enunciated WP:IKNOWIT. Agricola44 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am quoting the Spectator book reviewer, a respected author. Viewfinder (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a useful secondary source about the book. But there's not much in the way of original journalism there concerning the subject of this deletion discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I understand, he is not notable as a research mathematician; not enough publication list, which is not sufficient but is necessary for notability. The question is thus whether he is notable as a child prodigy. There are many very smart kids in the world and again from what I understand he doesn't stand out (being smart isn't enough.) -- Taku (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not enough publication list, which is not sufficient but is necessary for notability – the opinion that for academics a publication list is necessary for notability contradicts the guideline WP:PROF, which states at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria:
Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.
"Being smart" is not sufficient for notability, I agree. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline instead requires that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The subject clears this bar easily. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Experienced editors on this page have carried out investigatory journalism into the matter to a deeper extent than conventional journalists have because the former have an understanding of the cultural context that the latter lack. A nasty state of affairs has been exposed that Wikipedia would best dissociate itself from to avoid further harm to a vulnerable minor. That is why the BLP should be deleted and salted and this AfD debate blanked. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agree about blanking the debate, for reason given above by Cunard. It is a shame about the excessive hype because I still think there is enough good and credible material for a BLP. Viewfinder (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder, I agree. The only BLP problems here are those manufactured by several users who supported deletion. The unfounded hyperbolic accusations made by these editors again the subject's mother (two examples) have no support in reliable sources. There is no BLP problem because any editor who repeatedly inserts unsourced or poorly sourced negative information into a BLP would be blocked per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Semi-protection, protection, and blocking.

The "investigatory journalism" into the "nasty state of affairs" by editors supporting deletion referred to by Xxanthippe is a classic violation of Wikipedia:No original research. From the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability (bolding added for emphasis): "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding of policy. Nobody is suggesting putting these matters in article space. Au contraire, the suggestion is to delete the lot. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Morley Safer's 60 Minutes segment about Jacob Barnett is another high quality source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/. Reporting from Morley Safer is sprinkled throughout the newsmagazine's segment's 13 minutes and 50 seconds, so although the source contains many quotes, it cannot be dismissed as merely an interview. From page five of the transcript:
Yogesh Joglekar: It is definitely something else. The great memory does help him, of course. Because once he reads something, he remembers it. But what is more important is that he has the drive to learn more. He definitely stands out as a powerhouse of raw talent.
Professor Yogesh Jogelcar oversaw Jake's research project. Their work was published in "Physical Review A". Jake is the youngest person to be published in that prestigious physics journal.
Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/04/08/a-very-smart-kid-and-a-solid-theory/ – a Badastronomy.com blog post by Phil Plait and published in Discover Magazine. The source was mentioned above by Agricola44, one of the editors supporting deletion.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) states:
Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.
Since Phil Plait's blog post was published in Discover Magazine, and he is a professional journalist, I consider the article a reliable source.
Therefore, this reliable source adds to the subject's notability.
Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viewfinder (talk · contribs) wrote above: "You are challenging the reliability not just of the subject's mother, but of many internationally known publications, with plenty of fact checking resources. All of them are wrong and you are right? Strong stuff."
To discount all of the sources, editors supporting deletion have claimed that The Indianapolis Star, Time, The Independent, Indianapolis Star, The Times, Indianapolis Monthly, Psychology Today, WRTV, ABC News, The Spectator , CBC News, Waterloo Region Record, CTV News, and Vice are all unreliable sources that are inaccurate or are advertisements. That position is the only tenable way to continue denying that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I cannot share that view.
Cunard (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article only fails GNG if we agree with the contributor who described the issue as "one off trivial nonsense". The logical extension of that view is that autism and Asperger's syndrome in general are trivial nonsense. That is sad because, reading between that contributor's lines, I think it's possible that (s)he, like me, may be affected by them. But if we keep the article please can we delete the links to those articles that contain obvious and excessive hype. By contrast, the Plait article is excellent; I would say that the Novella blog also contains helpful advice for Jacob. Viewfinder (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now anyone who does not support this article also believes that "autism and Asperger's syndrome in general are trivial nonsense"? Sorry, that is not logical extension. Agricola44 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola, I was referring to the logical extension of a contribution by one contributor. I don't think I was implying that that was the general view of those who wish to delete the article. Even if it passes GNG (which it surely does, given the volume of publicity, regardless of accuracy and merit) there may still be reasons for deleting it. Viewfinder (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I studied mathematics as an undergraduate and mathematical physics as a graduate. A couple of years ago when the hype machine started to surround Jacob Barnett I watched his youtube videos and was struck by various things he said that were in turn either just inane twaddle or exceptionally basic. I did not see any original theory (or original thought for that matter) that could challenge Einstein. Also I think if the page is going to stay then some quotes from Barnett's mother's book will have to be included even if her own words do not portray either herself or her son in a particularly good light. Also the sources for the article are laughable at the present time. They could potentially be more balanced by including reference in the article to the Skeptics Society's excellent article by Dr Chris Edwards debunking Jacob's claims. Here's the link to the article that I recommend all Jacob's supporters read very carefully http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-09-25// Fatootsed (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite outward appearances, I think many here have been trying to keep an open mind. But, after reading Edwards' article, it seems this is indeed a fairly clear-cut case of systematic use and promotion of Jacob by his mother. Much of the text in her book is based on things said by people like Tremaine that have been changed in calculated ways to build a false image of Jacob as one who has disproved Einstein, debunked Big Bang, etc. The conclusion is now unavoidable: we are faced with precisely the dilemma that David Eppstein described above: BLP vs NPOV. Deletion is surely the lesser evil here, as a kept article will necessarily paint Kristine (and by extension Jacob) in a very unflattering way. Agricola44 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree completely with what you say and on rereading my comment above it does appear rather strongly worded which wasn't my intention. My comment was made through the prism of the Skeptic Society article which should leave little doubt in most people's minds that Jacob is being cynically exploited which made me angry. There are so many questions that remain unanswered regarding his mother's version of events. Fatootsed (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the Edwards article and would describe it as the sort of healthy skepticism to which all bestsellers should be subjected. I have still yet to see an appropriate source for the claim that "Jacob is being cynically exploited". I think we are all in agreement about Jacob's scientific impact to date. The claim that Jacob scored higher in an IQ test than Einstein might have done if he had taken it appears to be upheld, although Edwards makes the point well that IQ is not everything. Social, communication and emotional control skills can be just as important; these are often lacking in people affected by autism and AS. I doubt if Edwards would take the view that Kristine is doing anything other that which she thinks is best for her son. Claims of cynical exploitation are therefore the unsourced original research POV's of those contributors who are making them, are hurtful to Kristine, and should be ignored by whoever is in line to determine the fate of this article. Viewfinder (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Edwards' article is more critical of Kristine than you're letting on. A few quotes, e.g. "Kristine’s claims about Dr. Tremain’s reaction to Jacob’s theory are, at best, a misrepresentation", "here’s the baffling thing. Kristine writes that 'Jake had scored 170 on the Wechsler Fundamentals.." (discussing how his IQ myth has been promoted), "I suspect there’s probably something else going on here, not to mention that this attitude is more than a little condescending" (on Kristine's statements on her refusal to allow Jacob to participate in math competitions, where Jacob might not do well), and "Kristine Barnett and her publisher...by misrepresenting the emailed words of a single physicist...have hyped [Jacob] into a genius", make it pretty clear what Edwards' opinion is. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks to Viewfinder for taking the time to write your comment (and of course to Agricola44 too). I think sometimes things look more strident when written than when said. Think of it as a case of strong words softly spoken. I think it's also helpful to note that there appears to be a mini industry surrounding this young man and we have no way of knowing if someone from his mother's publisher is defending her here. My concern at present is that Jacob is being given enough rope to hang himself (which could damage his future especially with how his potential colleagues might treat him) and he should be allowed to grow up and when he makes a genuine contribution to science we can document it with an encyclopaedic entry. If you type in "jacob barnett" into google as you type the third option down is "jacob barnett hoax". This is very troubling given his age. However, I do not believe that wikipedia should be used as a PR exercise in stemming such criticism by using only sensationalistic sources. Regarding the article I linked to, I must have read it differently to you as I didn't get the idea that Edwards believes Jacob has a higher IQ than Einstein, but rather that a comparison was impossible as Einstein is not believed to have taken an IQ test. Plus of course, the IQ test that Jacob took was designed for children not adults (something the sensationalistic articles appear to have overlooked). Also, do you believe that the things Scott Tremaine said have been deliberately taken out of context by his mother and their PR to create the hype around her son in order to sell her book? Of course there is the possibility that she didn't understand what Scott Tremaine's kind and encouraging words to a child interested in physics actually meant. I also encourage you to check out Jacob's Facebook page. Whoever is running it does not correct the gushing fans who think he's disproved Einstein or that he's received a PhD which again doesn't help Jacob's standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatootsed (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

apologies I forgot to sign my comment Fatootsed (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mrs. Barnett willfully misconstrued the Tremaine quote. I am a published astrophysicist, and probably one of the few commenters in this discussion who has seen the original video that Tremaine was responding to. There is simply no way that he would have speculated on the matter of a Nobel in Barnett's future. I believe that the misrepresentation was willful because prior to publishing her book, she deleted that very video from the YouTube video feed. That video, if it had led Tremaine to make any prognostication of the young Barnett's grand future, would surely have been an important milestone. However, it was not after all: mathboysmom deleted it from her YouTube video timeline because it was not a milestone (and I'm being very charitable in this characterization). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen Jacob's FB page and in any case it is surely not appropriate as a source. I an not sure if skeptic.com qualifies as a source or how harmful it would be if we used it. I would say that we can balance the article adequately and safely with a link to Plait. Something a bit like "Claims that he has disproved relativity (etcetera) have not stood up to expert analysis" should be OK. The Tremaine quote is open to wide ranging interpretations and there are differences between Mrs Barnett and Dr Edwards. She does not appear to have made any false statements. She does not quote Tremaine as stating that Jacob is in line for a Nobel, only that he would be if his theory held. Tremaine may have gone on to imply that that is very unlikely, in which case she may simply be being economical with the truth, something that can be said about most publications. In any case I don't think it is appropriate for us to accuse anyone of willful misinterpretation or cynical manipulation, even if we can claim that our original research upholds such accusations. Aside: if a contributor is a publisher with a conflict of interest (s)he should declare it, but on the other hand, is there any way of knowing if someone opposed to the article is canvassing his or her colleagues? Viewfinder (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is absolutely not about not allowing experts in the field to contribute to Wikipedia. Such a reading of policy is poisonous and antithetical to our goal of being a serious encyclopedia, and you would do well not to pursue such an accusation further. Speaking for myself, I obviously have no conflict of interests, since there are no interests to conflict with. If Mr. Barnett had actually published something that I was attempting to undercut, that would be unethical and a clear conflict of interests. But the fact is that the young Mr. Barnett has not published anything in astrophysics. Indeed, there is no clear evidence that he even knows any astrophysics at a level worthy of publication! If you didn't credulously believe every hyped up story you read, and instead concentrated on things like verifiable facts (per policy), you would see how utterly without foundation such an accusation is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The COI issue was raised above by Fatootsed when (s)he asked if we could be sure that an article supporter was not employed by Mrs Barnett's publisher. It was not directed at you SB. Anyone should be encouraged to contribute provided they declare any interest. Viewfinder (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The reply was threaded below mine, which made me think it was directed at me, but thanks for the clarification. Obviously, in a BLP article it is inappropriate to declare that someone deliberately distorted the truth for financial gain. Rather, in an article we can present verifiable facts. The facts do seem to lead to that conclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sławomir, please accept my apologies that you inadvertently got caught up in this. I'm new to wikipedia and hoping to help edit mathematics and physics articles. I was not sure how one goes about raising COI issues. There appears to be multiple stakeholders in the official version of Jacob's story. The film rights to his mother's book have been purchased by Warner Bros with the film being given the tentative title "Scattered Skills". Here's a link to an article in Variety http://variety.com/2011/film/news/warners-buys-rights-to-autism-memoir-1118047505/ Fatootsed (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he becomes the subject of a feature film made by Warner Bros I don't see how we can possibly not have an article about him. Viewfinder (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Warner Bros do in the future actually make a feature film about his life then yes, I agree with you that he should have a page. His page could be deleted now and then recreated once the film actually exists.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Viewfinder's comment. It regrettably looks like a BLP vs NPOV issue. I wasn't intending to use his facebook page as a source for the article but rather asking you to have a glance at it to see the way that he (or whomever is running the page) isn't challenging any of his fans' wildly inaccurate views of him and his "work". It's useful as part of the background picture one can build up of the people promoting him. I believe the Skeptics Society is a credible source and the article was written by someone who bothered to do due diligence on Jacob's story and therefore should carry more weight than the sensational echo chamber articles which you appear to like. I believe Dr Chris Edwards as a published author of books such as "Teaching Genius: Redefining Education with Lessons from Science and Philosophy" would qualify as an expert in child prodigies. If Jacob's article remains then we have to add something from Dr Edwards' article. I think also we should add the comments from Kristine Barnett's book relating to the Mathematical Olympiad: “He’d found a sample Mathematical Olympiad problem set online the night before and had stayed up until two in the morning blowing through it for fun. It hadn’t been a challenge for him, and he didn’t want to take a win away from any of the kids who’d been studying so hard to get into the competition. ‘They’re all trying really hard, Mom. It’s not fair’.” Terry Tao and Grigori Perelman are former gold medalists at the olympiad so for Jacob to think he's better than them is interesting. Thanks to Sławomir for your useful and valuable comments.Fatootsed (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose the inclusion of a link to the SS article although I don't think it would be appropriate to include MO quote. Returning to generalities, I can understand the frustration of thousands of lifetime astrophysicists who have noticed young Barnett receive so much mass media attention while they have received none. But the reality is that Barnett, because of his age and autism, has, rightly or wrongly, received such attention. That is why we have an article about him. It is not for us to be the judge of whether or not he should have received that attention. To my mind, the case is more about childhood autism than about astrophysics. Viewfinder (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see you say that you think Jacob's story is primarily one about childhood autism. It would appear people view things entirely differently. I see from your comments above that you suffer from Aspergers and so he must be an inspiration to you. On the other hand, I am coming to this article from a mathematical physics background and want to make sure the article accurately reflects his actual scientific achievements. Of the people I've spoken to about Jacob (and for fairness only counting the few that had actually heard of him), nobody discussed his autism or his age but rather his extraordinary claims regarding disproving Einstein and the Big Bang plus the claim that he's smarter than Einstein.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something on the lines of "(Book......) ... but the book has generated some controversy (link to Skeptics article)" would surely be OK. The Skeptics article does not use undiplomatic language or say anything unkind about Jacob, it is already on the web, and I really don't see why the inclusion of a link to it on Wikipedia should be a problem for anyone. Viewfinder (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering to balance Jacob's wikipedia article with the Skeptics article. If the article has to stay then that's a good way to potentially keep it NPOV. I still think it would be prudent for the time being to delete the article and recreate it if either he does something of genuine scientific merit or has a major motion picture made about his life.Fatootsed (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closure please. The welfare of a vulnerable minor is at stake. All that can be said has been said. It is time for this debate to be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you. I believe other contributors have recommended in previous posts that this entire discussion should be removed if Jacob's page is deleted.Fatootsed (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced your closure request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure with a neutral message. Calling the subject a "vulnerable minor" at a highly trafficked noticeboard predisposes viewers to have a negative view of retaining the article. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is is inappropriate conduct to delete another editor's message and replace it with your own. I have reverted. If you wish to comment on that page you should add your own comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says, "Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded." Please reword your message to remove the "vulnerable minor" portion. Cunard (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your post here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is transcluded to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, a highly trafficked noticeboard. Many uninvolved editors may see your non-neutral post and visit this AfD with preconceived notions before this AfD is closed by an admin.

Posting a non-neutral message violates the noticeboard's instructions.

A non-neutral request for closure biasing viewers to support retention would be: "AfD on a BLP that has numerous reliable sources" rather than "AfD on BLP about vulnerable minor". Neither non-neutral message is appropriate.

I repeat my request for you to replace your non-neutral message with a neutral request for closure. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also helpful to note that there appears to be a mini industry surrounding this young man and we have no way of knowing if someone from his mother's publisher is defending her here. – that is an interesting claim coming from an editor whose account was created at 12:18, 2 July 2014, 30 minutes before your first post here, Fatootsed (talk · contribs).
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for contributing a source that adds to the subject's notability. You found this article from Skeptic. This is yet another reliable source that adds to the large body of reliable sources about the subject. As long as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight is observed, there will be no BLP problems.
I note that no one has contested http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/ (see my analysis above) and http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/ (see my analysis above) as reliable sources.
These three sources alone allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Factoring in the 14 other sources I listed above conclusively demonstrates that the subject is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I was not aware that only established contributors (even if they are scientifically illiterate) were allowed to be involved in discussions. I joined in the hope of helping to edit and improve articles relating to mathematics and physics, as it appears science articles are getting vandalised by people who either know nothing about science or who hate it. This was an interesting looking AfD entry about a person I had originally come across a couple of years ago and having seen his original youtube videos and with a background in mathematical physics I thought I was therefore in a position to contribute to the discussion. At the risk of repeating myself, a lot of your sources are laughable I'm afraid (and do have the whiff of an echo chamber), and the cbsnews link above doesn't really help Jacob in my opinion as it shows he's being labelled as an autistic savant with an exceptional memory. I'm not sure if any of these savants go on to make groundbreaking creative discoveries as the creative part of intelligence that IQ tests don't touch upon might be lacking (although hopefully for Jacob this won't be the case with him). Also the article states that Jacob was hoping to complete his undergraduate degree, which was something he ultimately didn't do. He did go on to do a 'masters level' course at the Perimeter Institute though, but again that's not really enough for notability as a child prodigy it appears. If the article does stay then some quotes from his mother's book should be included (especially relating to exactly what IQ test Jacob took and also about his stance on the Mathematical Olympiad), as well as the documented reasons for him not completing his undergraduate degree. It's reason like this that I felt it would be better to delete the article for the time being.Fatootsed (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I was not aware that only established contributors (even if they are scientifically illiterate) were allowed to be involved in discussions. – those are you words, not mine. Nothing in my post said that only established editors could participate in discussions.
Instead, I am thankful that you joined the discussion because you contributed the Skeptic magazine article whose reliability has not been contested by you or other editors supporting deletion. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wrongly thought you had an issue with me being new. My thanks to you too for highlighting the cbsnews article link as you've pointed out to me that Jacob still suffers from a serious disability (I mistakenly thought he was fine now judging from his videos which I apologise for). I'm not sure whether it could ever be appropriate to have an article regarding a minor with a severe disability (I do not claim to have any knowledge of autism although the cbsnews article makes it sound serious). If a NPOV can't be achieved at present due to us having to take into account his disability and his age, perhaps delete this for now and review it when he's an adult?Fatootsed (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This AfD's positive effect is that through a community effort, it has helped unearth reliable sources that present different sides of Jacob Barnett's story.
I believe NPOV can be achieved while taking into account his disability and his age as long as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight is followed. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm still hoping this article is deleted but if it isn't I'd be happy to work with you to try and make it into a good NPOV article that's fair to both Jacob and the truth. A colleague of mine has just pointed out an issue that I'd totally missed: By people claiming Jacob as Einstein's heir apparent who's about to revolutionise physics with his new grand theory if he does anything less than this extremely difficult task (for example just turns out to have a mediocre but fun career as a research physicist) he could be deemed a total failure in the eyes of the public (or even worse). Not all child prodigies go on to Terry Tao levels of greatness and perhaps this is another significant reason Jacob's wiki page should be deleted. He's a disabled minor who might not achieve what some people hope he might. Fatootsed (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is moving in a direction which I like better. But I don't like seeing people with Asperger's syndrome referred to as a "disabled". Following this discussion, I think we should be given time to try to create an article which will not be harmful to its subject. Xxanthippe, removing this article will not remove the media hype. On the other hand, an NPOV article here, with links to articles that challenge claims that suggest to some lay readers that he about to revolutionize physics, may actually help to dampen the unrealistic expectations which some contributors to this discussion fear. None of the authors of these articles want to discourage him. Viewfinder (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't like people with autism / Asperger's being referred to as disabled but it's a widespread phenomenon and it was not my intention to cause offence. I didn't use the word lightly, but rather after reading locally about the Disabled Student Allowance that people with Asperger's / ASD can apply for within the UK http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/disabilityadvisoryservice/supportatimperial/funding . The question I'm grappling with is: should wikipedia even have BLP articles about minors with disabilities? Have more experienced wikipedians raised the question with the wiki powers that be about whether it's a good idea to allow any BLP pages regarding any child who's disabled? Should there be a blanket ban to protect them? I don't think this debate is helping anything anymore and I think we are all going to go around in circles until it's decided whether or not to delete Jacob's page. If they do delete it then hopefully they'll delete this whole discussion page too. If not then we'll try to work together to make it a better article in the hope that we won't be stuck in an infinite loop of AfD debates.Fatootsed (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fatootsed has raised an interesting point. I think it would be a mistake to rule categorically on whether it is appropriate to have an article on disabled minors at all. We already have a policy WP:BLP that provides very firm safeguards on biographies of living persons. Generally, I think that such safeguards are more relaxed if the subject is a "public figure" (this term has a precise legal sense). However, if the subject is a minor and there is evidence that his status as a public figure is the result of exploitation, then I think one could argue that the subject is a victim of circumstance, and our BLP policy advises special care in such situations. What I think has become clear here is that there are a few quality sources that exist to balance the mother's account that has been repeated in a large number of tabloid sources. So it is probably possible to meet the demands of WP:NPOV with the sourcing that we now have. So it seems that the question that needs to be settled is indeed whether the WP:BLP concerns outweigh the need to comply with WP:NPOV. If so, then the article should be deleted. If not, then it should be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV (and will necessarily convey a much more accurate and less flattering picture of the subject). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Accuracy is what we are about. Not flattery. Viewfinder (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're now circling back to an old argument. The problem is that, if the article is kept, all it will be is a stub having (1) some biographical minutiae and (2) a narrative of the "Jacob Industry" and the numerous outlandish claims made by him or on his behalf regarding non-existent accomplishments in physics. Agricola44 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The outlandish claims can be balanced by sourced material that challenges these claims and will leave the informed reader in no doubt about their outlandish nature. Maybe the BLP problem will remain and the final result will be deletion, but some of us on both sides have at least agreed to work together to try to write an NPOV article. It is interesting that this AfD is still open. If I were admin I am not sure that I would have closed it in response to prodding with the unsourced POV that "a vulnerable minor is at risk", which implicitly points the finger at multiple international publishers. For my part, I am supposed to have retired from editing Wikipedia, but as the central issue, autism/AS, affects me, I am willing to come out of retirement to help. Viewfinder (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As one last point of perspective on this subject, it might be helpful to view Jacob's TED talk. I came away with distinct impression that Jacob is a self-deluded showman. (He must be about 13 or 14 in this video.) He introduces himself as a physicist, his younger brothers, one who is said to be a chemist and the other a meteorologist, he condescends the audience regarding their lack of mathematical giftedness, knowledge of history (even though he gets basic facts wrong, like Einstein's patent employment being in Germany (it wasn't)), espouses his theory that one has to "stop learning" in order to find one's own individual path to creativity (like Newton), makes other claims we haven't discussed here (derived Kepler's Law), etc. In other words, it appears he has come to believe the myth of himself. For those of us commentators here who work in science or mathematics, it is kind of difficult to watch. Agricola44 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But am I not right is noting that the video has had 3.6 million views? Whether we like it or not, this guy is notable. I am going to try to draft some NPOV passages on his talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is not notability. The only aspect I'm trying to raise here is that, by his own words, Jacob himself is "in on it" (though perhaps by conditioning from a young age) in the sense that he (1) believes these aspect about himself, e.g. 11:30 to 12:02 about an important astrophysics problem he's solved or the Tremaine bit ("some guy at Princeton", 13:02 to 13:21) and (2) is patently wrong about lots of things, e.g. Newton was not proved wrong (12:46 to 12:52) and Einstein did not suffer under the Nazis at the time he was developing relativity theory (because he went to Switzerland already by 1896, 8:30 to 8:45). The point is that this seems to be another case of well-crafted and well-covered self-promotion by someone who is not what they profess to be. We have typically deleted such articles in the past (e.g. Smarandache and Haramein) on the basis that all the sources are under false pretenses. That is certainly the case here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hits are not the exclusive measure of notability but his view count is still worth mentioning. I rather liked the way he explained that Newton's Laws, regarded as solid for so long, did not explain the orbit of Mercury, and how Einstein set out to expand and succeeding in expanding on Newton's Laws to explain that orbit. That is what Jacob has been trying to do to Einstein's theories. I am not an expert on the subject but I suspect there was anti-Semitism in Switzerland too. Viewfinder (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but it sounds like you've bought into the myth yourself: "what Jacob has been trying to do to Einstein's theories" doesn't count for anything. There are certainly thousands of cranks around the world trying to "do" the very same thing right at this very moment! Agricola44 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You're probably right about the cranks! But it is Jacob who, rightly or wrongly, has captured the world's attention, even if we do think he is just another crank. Viewfinder (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well he didn't just write and publish a paper "Origin of maximal symmetry breaking in even PT-symmetric lattices" (written in collaboration with his professor), he actually (at the age of 12 or 13) solved a mathemathical problem, that had'nt been solved until then - it would perhpas be enlightening if the article reflected this aspect as well! Some in this discussion seem to think, that you should be "exceptional" in order to have your own article here at wikipedia - I think the proper term is "notable" and that is somewhat different to exceptional. And young Barnett is a pretty smart kid, I don't think his "welfare" in any way are at stake whatever we write in this article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't solve any of the problems that he has claimed. This has already been established above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't have time for more of this argument today - my ~~Keep~~ (strike double vote Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)) stands! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Summation. Apologies to whoever has to go through this mountain of text. I think one thing has changed, which is that the TED video shows Jacob, in his own words, making several of the discredited claims that we have previously blamed primarily on shoddy sensationalism. In other words, he is part of the promotion itself. For me, this now creates new questions as to the possible degrees to which the writers of all those articles were misled by both Jacob and his mother. (Lack of fact-checking is certainly still an issue for the writers, but that is a separate issue.) This casts an even larger shadow on all those sources. Jacob certainly has WP:FAME, but the substantive, honest content now seems to be just about totally gone. Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Millions of people around the world promotes themselves or someone close to them - that's hardly new to anyone. I don't get your point? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has received substantial and sustained coverage in many international publications, regardless of whether we think he ought to have done. We have agreed that there should be NPOV links to skeptical sources that we have found. Anything more, like your comments about the video, is your POV and original research. Viewfinder (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the TED video: Jacob himself is shown making false claims, not me. This is nothing more than another case of a promotional industry started around a child and a pack of untrue claims, in which the child him/herself is eventually grows into and carries over. I hope someone closes this soon because we're just spinning our wheels now. Best to you in the future. I'm signing off. Agricola44 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I found one source that seems to be reliable and independent (aside from the title and the fluff in the first paragraph): Wells, Paul (1 September 2013). "Jacob Barnett, boy genius". Retrieved 4 July 2014. It is properly dismissive of the IQ and Nobel stuff, and has a lot of independent comments by people from the Perimeter Institute. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written by journalist Paul Wells of Maclean's. I agree that it is a high quality independent reliable source about the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (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. It appears that there is agreement that the term is somewhat notable, and what remains to be done is a matter of editing, preferably by subject matter experts. Sandstein 11:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting case (philosophy of science)[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created this article because I was looking for that definition and it was hard to find. Wikipedia usually has everything. But if it is not good for helping students, what is it good for? The article can grow. I'm sure about that... --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.Wiktionary.org might be a better place for a dictionary definition, the dictionary equiv of Wikipedia, same Foundation, same login, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, less known by millions. But anyway, my main point is that I think this particular phrase deserves an encyclopedic article. I can expand it if you want (but I'm not going to do it if you delete it, hehe). Regards --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone can win here. If we transwiki to wiktionary, and then soft redirect to wiktionary while Damián A. Fernández Beanato is writing his encyclopaedic article, then once it's written he can submit it to AFC with a view to replacing the soft redirect with the freshly-written material. That way, we don't have a dicdef in the mainspace, but someone who looks this up on Wikipedia can still get to the information, wiktionary gains a definition it doesn't currently have, and a new article can be written without any bad feeling.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that if you want to do that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, fellows! I'm going to include an extra paragraph in a matter of minutes. If that is not enough for the stub status, then we can proceed as S Marshall suggests. Thank you! BTW, you can call me just Damian! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yet again. The article has now three illustrative paragraphs. I think it meets the criterion to be considered a stub now... You can tell me. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This philosophical definition seems to be inconsistent with the use of "limiting case" in mathematics and theoretical physics. Should we be documenting such a rare and strange use of the phrase? I would say not. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a legitimate article on a subject needed for students and specialists in this field. Dear Dingo, I bet you are not in this field. It's not "rare and strange" at all. In fact it is basic jargon in this studies. Perhaps you are not familiarized with the philosophy of science... that would not be a basis for asking the deletion of a specialized science article.--Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; and I'm not so sure that transwiki is a good idea. I am unable to verify that this term, in this sense, finds much use in the field, or indeed outside of the cited paper (which is the only reference). That paper, by Laudan, is clearly an important paper in the philosophy of science, cited more than 900 times at Google Scholar - but the term "limiting case" does not appear to be an important feature of that article. I can only see the abstract and the first page, but the term is not mentioned there. Other papers following up on the Laudan original also don't seem to pick up on the term. As this article's author admits, the definition was "hard to find." I conclude that it is not currently a well established enough term to have an article here or a definition at Wiktionary. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC) (Changing my opinion based on seeing the whole source.)[reply]
I'm a bit perplexed by the trouble you and other users are apparently experiencing finding the sources, and I wonder whether something weird is going on. Perhaps google's filtering the European results differently when Americans do a search? In any case, the full text MelanieN couldn't find is here, but would interested editors please also peruse this source which is more focused on limiting cases in the philosophy of science. This source isn't really about limiting cases but does give us a beautiful one-sentence example ("Physicists agree that classical mechanics constitutes a limiting case of relativity theory", second sentence of the abstract), while this source adds nothing to what we already know but does provide useful corroboration. (Sorry, essentially the same information is repeated several times. I've found it helps to have quantity as well as quality of sources when notability is in doubt.)—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki. Thanks for the link to the full source article, S Marshall; it changed my opinion. A long and dense but interesting read. Laudan does eventually get around to using the term in the article, and he discusses it at some length. (He mostly discusses it to play down the concept; he doesn't seem to think that the "limiting case" phenomenon occurs all that often.) More to the point, he didn't create the term; he attributes it to others, and discusses the way others use it. So I conclude this it IS a legitimate term in the philosophy of science, even though as Dingo notes it's kind of a weird use of the word "limiting." (I would have thought that "limited case" would describe it better than "limiting case"; maybe it's a translated version of the original concept? but in any case it does appear to be the term they use.) The definition provided in the subject article is very technical and hard to follow; a more layman-friendly definition might be something like this: "In the philosophy of science, a "limiting case" theory is an earlier theory which becomes incorporated into a later, broader theory; in other words, the earlier (limiting case) theory proves to be a special or limited case of the later theory." That's based on my own understanding of what they are saying, since their jargon can be impenetrable. If some of the earlier sources that Laudan mentions (Watkins, Popper, Post, Krajewski, Koertge) could be found and incorporated into the article, I think this could remain here. The example that S Marshall provides (classical mechanics and relativity theory) could also be included. If it isn't expanded in this way, a single-sentence definition such as I have suggested could be put at Wiktionary, since I conclude that the term does find recognition and use in the philosophy of science. (Maybe my problem was that journals like Erkenntnis, Synthese, and the Rutherford Journal are not well indexed at Google Scholar.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should make it clearer that I am only in favor of "keep" if the article 1) gets additional sources and 2) is substantially rewritten in simpler language to be more comprehensible to the average reader. Otherwise I favor transwiki. --MelanieN (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That example (classical mechanics and relativity theory) was already included in the article. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This a mess. There used to be an article Limiting case which covered the phrase's accepted meaning in mathematics (and theoretical physics). Beanato renamed that article and created the new article Limiting case (philosophy of science). He must believe that the two meanings are distinct (else why two articles?). If you read carefully you will see that Laudan's definition is indeed (somewhat) different. But he claims that this is what physicists mean. So I think this is a misunderstanding by Laudan or simply carelessness. I agree that "limiting case" is a phrase in common use in mathematics and science. I don't know whether it is really used in this slightly distorted form in the philosophy of science. Philosophers have a tendency to use words without any clear or consistent definition. (Beanato had to search hard for any definition). I would like to return to the status quo ante with a single article based on the clear mathematical meaning. If anyone wants to add a sentence that the phrase is used by philosophers in whatever way they think they use it, that would be OK by me. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if combining them into a single article would work - since the philosophers seen to use the term in a very different (almost opposite) way from the mathematicians. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are philosophers really using the term consistently in this way or is this just Laudan? And how do we handle the fact that he claims that this is the way physicists use it when they actually don't? Dingo1729 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At least I can assure you that we use it all the time at the University of Buenos Aires. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laudan cites half a dozen other people at least who seem to use it in exactly this way. And I don't see him talking about anyone other than philosophers of science. (Like most phil of sci writing, this seems completely detached from the way working scientists talk.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going from the article which says "Following Larry Laudan, scientists use this phrase in the sense that...". Maybe that's just a problem with the article. I'll change "scientists" to "philosophers" and see if that sticks. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the claim in the Laudan paper (on page numbered 39) about scientists using the term in Laudan's sense. Though I really don't want to get into the swamp of "this reliable source says something which clearly isn't true". Dingo1729 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we confuse what we would like science to be with real scientific work :) --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that "following Larry Laudan" is a mis-statement. Laudan makes it very clear that he is citing the work of others when he uses that term. He introduces the term by saying "John Watkins, a like-minded convergentist, puts the point this way: It typically happens in the history of science that when some hitherto dominant theory T is superceded by T1, T1 is in the relation of correspondence to T [i.e., T is a 'limiting case' of T1] (1978, pp. 376-377). ... Numerous recent philosophers of science have subscribed to a similar view, including Popper, Post, Krajewski, and Koertge. (15)" Laudan then goes on to disagree strongly with the word "typically," and to argue that in fact this kind of situation is not at all the rule. If the article is making it sound like this is Laudan's idea, I think that is a total distortion of his point. (Also I think it should say "philosophers of science" even if the source says "scientists".) --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Melanie. It was my wording mistake, changing it now. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "limiting case" has been mistranslated at all. I think it makes sense in perspective and context. Imagine you're a scientist who's formulating a new theory. There's an old and well-tested theory that's demonstrably fairly accurate, but your new theory is wider in scope, so you intend to subsume/replace the old theory. When you're formulating your new theory, the need to duplicate the effect of old theory constrains the range of new theories that are available to you. So it's a "limiting case" for our hypothetical theory-formulator. I don't know if I've explained that every well... does it help to clarify?—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it doesn't have to make sense to me; it only has to make sense to the people who use it. --MelanieN (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, S Marshall. It is something along the lines you explained. The older theory is not simply replaced, it is subsumed conserving its theoretical referents (the unseen entities that it postulates). One of the reasons I created the article for was precisely because in other languages we say "limit", not "limiting" case, so a student needs to know how it is said in English. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, fellows. I introduced Melanie's proposal for a simpler language lead paragraph. I'm now going to find more references, as she requested. Thank you. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref. on "limiting case" as used by Karl Popper. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable — see The Philosophy of Science, for example. It's not clear to me why their jargon is limiting case rather than limited case but that's by the way. Note also that the vague wave to WP:DICDEF in the nomination is quite inappropriate: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Andrew (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usual mathematical (and scientific) usage would be special case. Limiting case (to a scientist/mathematician) would be when the you can't just substitute in values which give the earlier theory, but you get it when you take a limit (most often when something tends to infinity, but there are other cases when a value of a parameter makes the equations invalid, but taking a limit works). My best guess is that some philosopher misunderstood the words and the mutated usage didn't die. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but anyway that's the phrasing in English. In Spanish we say "limit" (límite) case. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dingo, are you maintaining your vote, which is (other than the nominator's) the only one in favor of deletion? --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should change my vote but I simply can't bring myself to do it. The problem is that this situation is contradictory and idiotic. The discussion here has clearly shown that when a philosopher of science says that something is a limiting case then it will never be a limiting case so far as a scientist is concerned. And the converse is true too. A limiting case for a scientist will never be a limiting case for a philosopher of science. When a philosopher says that a scientist claims that something is a limiting case (as in one of the references), God knows what we should think. I keep hoping against hope that someone will come along and say that the definition in the article is not the universally accepted one among philosophers. So I'm coming away from this with the firm belief that this group of philosophers of science are too lazy and ignorant to learn about science, or the basic vocabulary in the subject they are loftily philosophizing about. I'm going to take this off my watchlist. The whole thing is just too irritating. And I'm keeping my delete vote in the hope that the world comes to its senses. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, dear Dingo. I'm afraid to say that this definition is indeed "the universally accepted one among philosophers". I want to believe that we are not "too lazy and ignorant to learn about science", as you said (hehe). But please don't be irritated, the same words can be used in different senses in different contexts, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is something fundamental that we philosophers of science are not grasping. :) --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2014 (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. Whilst the article isn't perfect, It is notable. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharda University[edit]

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

This is a blatant advertising for the college and looks like it was lifted straight out of a brochure. No external references as well. If the History of the article is probed, it can be seen that advertising has been a recurrent theme in all tags. There has been some edits from a ShardaUniv account as well which points to an employee typing out this from a brochure.கிருஷ்ணா/Krishna (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding university. We always hold these to be notable. There is a difference between the notability of the subject and the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Recognised university. This article needs a lot of work but this can't be the reason to delete it. This university was in news recently [25]--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CGP Grey. There is pretty good consensus here that a stand-alone article is not called for. Beyond that, opinions are all over the map. There are reasonable arguments given for any of Delete, Redirect, and Merge, and for the later two, both CGP Grey and Brady Haran are suggested as targets. Rhododendrites makes a good argument why Haran is an unsuitable choice. Lacking any clear consensus between the remaining possibilities, WP:PRESERVE would seem to argue for a merge, so that's what we're doing. Exactly how much of the existing material needs to be merged is left to whoever does the merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Internet[edit]

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

As much as I'd like the article to exist (I love the podcast), it hasn't yet been covered by multiple reliable sources as far as I can tell and is thus not (yet) notable. Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hosts' popularity - millions of youtube subscribers between them - alone make this project sufficiently notable. Additionally, 532 Reviews on iTunes after 14 episodes, 16,000 google results for search term ""hello internet" podcast" (with hello internet in quotes), and it was (at least briefly) the top podcast in itunes (https://static.squarespace.com/static/52d66949e4b0a8cec3bcdd46/t/52fbf2e4e4b04f3c7b4c42a4/1392243432969/?format=1500w). Stevetursi (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited - this article should be able to stand up with information about itself, not its creators. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS - articles are judged on reliable source coverage, not the number of webpages which show up in a google search. Sam Walton (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ..which is why I pointed out the number of google search results, the number of itunes reviews, and the top rating in itunes. Stevetursi (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of which matters until the podcast is the subject of multiple reliable independent sources. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - How are the editors at apple who determine the top podcasts in their store not considered an independent source? Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm already regretting getting involved in this conversation. This kind of banter makes wikipedia far too tedious for anything but reading. I don't understand how anyone could not look at the podcast and say it's not clearly notable. You have my opinion, my vote, and you can take it for what it's worth. Or not. Stevetursi (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies, it wasn't my intention to get into 'banter'. If we didn't have strict guidelines on what qualified as notable the encyclopedia would fill with articles on any old thing that happens to exist. As I said above I'd love for HI to have an article but I couldn't find any sources on which to base this article. As such the only reliable information we can write is "The podcast was top rated on iTunes"; hardly a compelling and informative article. But yes, as you say, AfDs are judged on the merits of their participant's arguments, so we'll see. Sam Walton (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stevetursi, two points: (1) You may be using the term "notable" in the dictionary sense, while in this context we're analyzing it as Wikipedia notability guidelines use the term, involving specific criteria. Many topics are notable in the normal colloquial sense, but do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (what we might call "not notable" as shorthand). (2) A primary reason for requiring independent reliable sources with significant coverage about a topic is so there are objective sources on which to base a substantive article. There just don't seem to be any such sources for this topic. Agyle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest something like including it as a subsection of the CGP Grey or Brady Haran page? If so, which one? I also see that someone has created a list of episodes page, should that stay? Kieran Hunt (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC+2)
- I think that would be a good solution, yes. Yeah I noticed that; I'm not 100% sure of the rules on lists but I assume it will probably be kept/deleted based on the outcome of this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into CGP Grey As a fan of CPG Grey and an avid listener of Hello Internet, even biased little me can acknowledge that the podcast simply isn't notable enough to stand on its own two feet. In my opinion the CGP Grey article should be restructured to be about the man not the youtube channel, which would then allow Hello Internet to become a subsection. Obviously it would be a subsection to Brady's page as well.--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect, or redirect to Brady Haran if a mention of Hello Internet! is added to that article. I searched but did not find the subject mentioned at all (even trivially) in any independent reliable sources. Do not really see anything factually verifiable worth merging from the current version of the article. The podcast website's About page offers a basic description of the website, and while not an independent source, perhaps it could be cited for a one-sentence mention of the podcast in Haran's article, thereby warranting the redirect. A difficult choice arises in that it seems equally valid to redirect it instead to CGP Grey, if it mentions the podcast as well, but if the CGP Grey article is ostensibly about a YouTube channel rather than its host, there doesn't seem to be any reason to mention Hello Internet! in the CGP Grey article. A disambiguation page would not apply even if the podcast is mentioned on both pages, since we don't refer to Hello Internet! as "Brady Haran" or "CGP Grey".Agyle (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not separate from the podcast's creator. Shii (tock) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with both CGP Grey and Brady Haran under a new section titled "Hello Internet". Hotelmason241 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CGP Grey as whatever page it redirects to has to talk about this subject (and Haran's article doesn't). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It reached "#1 iTunes podcast in United Kingdom, United States, Germany, Canada, and Australia.[2]" So it is a notable show. Shows can be notable separate from the people involved in them. Dream Focus 07:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See the discussion above where I explain that this isn't a reason to keep the article. Sam Walton (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are other ways to determine notability, such as a notable accomplishment. Dream Focus 09:55, 4 July 2014 (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. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist (Savant album)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have any notability independent from the artist. Can't find any primary sources and doesn't seem to have charted in any countries. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regarding charts, the album has supposedly reached the top 10 in Finland and Norway, and also reaching #1 on Beatport. I also can find some reviews including this one --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Norwegian or Finnish charts seem to list that it was ever a top 10 album, unless I'm just not navigating the websites properly. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The album has also supposedly reached #9 of the top 100 in the iTunes US Dance charts and #2 in Bandcamp. Currently looking for a relilable source. I checked the Finnish and Norwegian charts, and I can't find the album or artist. The album could be on a different chart. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: when you say "can't find any primary sources", do you in fact mean secondary sources? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I'm not sure how I wrote that so wrong in the first place. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Submarine Squadron 4. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Submarine Squadron Four, US Navy[edit]

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

This article is spun off from Submarine Squadron 4. I removed most of the info on this page from the SUBRON4 page as I don't believe that the info was relevant or notable. I don't see how a list of CAPT CO's can be important to the history. My suggestion is to move some of the info back to the SUBRON4 page. The editor of the SUBRON4 page is closely linked to SUBRON4 and took umbrage at my editing the page. Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gbawden, what you removed was mostly, a list of submarines that had served with the squadron - core data for a squadron history - and lists of commanding officers - things that are routinely included in military unit articles. All of this is notable (can be verified in multiple sources) and unquestionably relevant. I disagree with your edit strongly, though the material needs to be refactored a bit, and the non-Subron 4 details of other subs and tenders removed, plus some information which is already at the linked articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4, without leaving redirect. No call for two articles: I would expect a history of the squadron in the main article. I see no reason not to include the information on the various commanding officers.TheLongTone (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To all Concerned. I did take umbrage. I see this as a solution. As Gbawden alluded, I am close to SUBRON4 as I was a member of that squadron from 1982-1986 and 1990-1992. Delete my HISTORY page and leave the information on the talk page as you see fit. I will move all of the years of research and documentation from discussions with former SUBRON4 Commanders and Squadron Members to a Facebook Group page. I can see that Wikipedia is not really the conducive vehicle that I once thought for historical data on military units. You really can't see how an list of SUBRON4 Commanders is relevant to the history of the Squadron? That was all I needed to know to make a decision. Sorry to have wasted the last three years pouring over squadron documentation only to have it dismissed as "irrelevant". Have a good day.

Esquire122 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)ET2 Watkins, SUBRON4[reply]

Dont throw your toys out of the pram. You seem to lack a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works: once an article has been created, anybody has a right to edit it. I see that one edit you reverted simply filled out a bare reference: stupid. I agree with you about the content, but you do not make any case for there being two articles on the same topic.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4. Most of the info is notable, but it needs to presented in a better way and not in a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Submarine Squadron 4. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a repository for non-notable details of every military unit. Commanders who are notable (by the WP definition of notability) might be worth mentioning, commanders who filled a billet for a few years probably are not. Remember, none of us own an article. If it is feared the information may be lost and useful to something other than Wikipedia, userfy the info until it can be transferred elsewhere. EricSerge (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Submarine Squadron 4 without loss of information. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As several of you have pointed out, users can edit/delete at will and I do fear that some information may be lost. As Eric noted, historical data may not be appropriate for WP. I have the information in a WORD file and published, so you may do what you reach a concensus to do without further objection from me. Longtone, please accept my apology if I appeared to be "throwing a tantrum". Years of chasing leads, pouring over archive documents, and contacting former SUBRON4 Commanders on the phone has allowed me to collect to the most extensive historical archive on SUBRON4 outside of the US Navy Archives in DC. It also led me to be over-protective of all the work myself and some others have done collecting information. I think some of you are right in retrospect, in the commentary that WP is not the place for historical information, since what is "notable" for someone who was a member of SUBRON4 isn't notable for others who where never there. Point taken. Esquire122 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all your hard work on researching SUBRON 4, Esquire122. Lists of commanding officers are routinely placed in articles and there is no reason why this information should be deleted. Please do not be deterred from continuing to add material to wikipedia. The only thing I have to warn you about is that material has to be previously published; we do not allow WP:Original Research. That means original research - suuch as yours may include - may have to be published elsewhere before being added to Wikipedia. Also, yes people will reformat your information, but unfortunately, that does happen. Please feel free to contact me directly should you feel in need of future advice. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the parent article. Although the discussion of what content should or not should not be in the article is not strictly the purview of AFD, I will state that a list of commanders in an article on a military unit is a perfectly sensible thing to have. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the parent article. Also, I am concerned about OR and what appears to be some OWN behavior. Intothat darkness 15:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to E.J. Altbacker. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Wars[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 19:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E.J. Altbacker for now, although I'm unsure if he'd even meet WP:BIO. I found all of two sources: Publisher's Weekly review, Morton Report.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and I agree with Brainy J. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Glenn[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - few fights, none top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this point he fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the contrary, with some basic research via Sherdog and the World Series of Fighting website I found out that this fighter is currently the featherweight champion of a top tier promotion, which according to WP:MMANOT actually passes criteria, although the user who created this article should of finished the job in my opinion. Perhaps instead of deleting this article it should simply 'completed'. I will aim to finish the fighter's win/loss record if someone would like to volunteer to work on his background and gather sources for future verification? 109.144.181.38 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he is not. WP:MMANOT lists what are considered the top tier organizations and he has yet to fight for any of them.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He currently has had no fights that qualify as top tier so he fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Wanderley[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter, few fights, none top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's not notable as an MMA fighter, but he was the IBJJF black belt super heavyweight world champion in 2003.[26]

I got caught out on spelling issues but yes - let the AfD run its course but I think he is notable. I corrected the links.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IBJJF world champion shows notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gud Guy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Piece of fluff created by someone who is trying to promote a student short film. No sources except IMDb and one self-source. Bbb23 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS provided, none found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. After this was nominated and rather performing the suggested tagging for issues, an anon IP blanked most of the article without providing an edit summary. And even though I do not believe this topic will show itself notable enough for inclusion, I looked to MOS:FILM and WP:ATD and returned the 'blanked' information and tagged it for sources. Might seem a waste of effort, but a bit better than blanking... and how else can a new contributor better understand our requirements than through example? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article per WP:N. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 27 June 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciliary body melanoma[edit]

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uveal melanoma as a new section. It seems sensible to have closely related cancers in the same place for easier reference. There is a reliably sourced reference here. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:MEDRS. Some source examples include: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Also, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing within articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 29 June 2014 (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya gowda[edit]

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

I'm not seeing her resume as creating notability for her. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her pageant title is not enough to create notability, and her modeling is run of the mill stuff.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have provided you various sources which are genuine and they had been published in the newspapers and various other websites. For e.g Monica hair and Beauty sources have been provided, also her article published in Times of India and Indian Express has been provided. Please do let us know what more information you require for the authenticity of the article. Digisammy (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [39], [40]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 29 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MARTI in Paris[edit]

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

no sources provided to show notability Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails verifiability. If her work were really in the Louvre's permanent collection, that would go a long way towards WP:CREATIVE, but I can find nothing supporting that. All we have are claims from the artist's own web site, of dubious veracity. The book touted by the article in its first paragraph, This Earth of Ours, is from an obscure Indian small press (with someone else, "Carlos", credited as photographer), and since then she has apparently moved to self-publishing, so it's going to be difficult to find notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments. Though the article claims that she's "Also known as Marti Mueller", it's not obvious that Google has heard of a photographer of this name. (Try it yourselves.) ¶ The article tells us: "MARTI, Mueller (1979). Africa undermined. USA: Penguin. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0140219647." To me this suggests that somebody called Mueller Marti wrote the first three pages of a book titled Africa undermined. But it doesn't take much googling to find that "with Marti Mueller", Greg Lanning wrote Africa undermined: Mining companies and the underdevelopment of Africa. (In the review for the journal Africa, Mueller is given coauthor status; but it's still Lanning who comes first.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google "Marti Mueller" site:.fr finds almost nothing of note. -- GreenC 03:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources sufficient to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. R. E. McKechnie Elementary School[edit]

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

NN elementary school that provides education for children grades K-7. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its school district or locality per long-standing established precedent for non-notable primary schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vancouver School Board per precedent as stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 29 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UWA Hardcore Wrestling[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007, I can find no coverage about this wrestling promotion in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much outside of press releases.LM2000 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist rationale: After closing delete, an editor pointed out that a number of references had been added to the article since the last opinion had been made here. I've restarted the AfD with a hope that another editor or two will comment on their views in view of those sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis - My apologies, somehow, I missed the addition of the sources to the article.
1. This is a good source towards establishing notability as CANOE is a reliable source and the article is both substantial and features UWA as the primary topic.
2. This is a weak source. It appears to be more of a directory entry rather than an article on the UWA.
3. This is a weak source. It would appear to be part of an interview from a DVD for a wrestler.
4. Not sure that an interview World Wrestling Insanity establishes notability. Is this a reliable source?
5. It's not clear if Inside Pulse represents a reliable source.
6. The WorldnetDaily item is a presss release so that is not an independent source
7. This article simply posts a press release
8. This is simply an event announcement / listing
9. This is simply a directory of DVDs that you can buy.
- Based on the sources added, I still believe that notability has not been established although I appreciate the effort in adding the references. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2014 (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Galatasaray SK Wheelchair Basketball Season[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NSEASONS. While wheelchair basketball as a sport has inherent notability, and this basketball club likely does as well, I see no evidence that this season of this club warrants a stand-alone article. The sole reference is to a web page dedicated to and operated by the club (i.e., not an independent source) and contains no information about the 2005-2006 season in question (i.e., it lacks relevance). If other editors feel the subject warrants inclusion, a redirect might be appropriate; otherwise, failing the appearance of some independent, reliable sources on the 2005-2006 season of this team (in either English or in Turkish or in any language), I propose the article be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 23:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. Not notable enough. Kante4 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I try to maintain an open mind when I see an article about an obscure foreign sports team, i.e., one outside the Egnlish language media world. Maybe I am just ignorant of the sport, maybe the team is a huge deal in its own city or country. That having been said, a Google search reveals 28 hits for "Galatasaray SK Wheelchair Basketball," and virtually all of them are Wikipedia mirror articles or derivatives. Mind you, that's for the team itself, not the team's 2005-06 season. My analysis strongly suggests that the subject season fails the specific notability requirements for WP:NSEASONS and the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. If another editor turns up a raft of quality Turkish language reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the 2005-06 season, I am certainly willing to be educated and to change my !vote as appropriate. Absent that, however, I think submitting the parent team page as well as the other season articles for AfD review is the far more likely outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LIVE Entertainment. Not much info there to Merge but if Freshh or MichaelQSchmidt want to Merge I have no objection. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Video Entertainment[edit]

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

Not notable due to length and since said info is mentioned in Artisan Entertainment. Freshh! (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company: LIVE Entertainment. Merge whatever is sourcable. No independent notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:51, 25 June 2014 (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. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Marie Slavick[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence from reliable sources of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comment Not a great deal of coverage outside of local and self published sources. However, She has won recognised awards at Bumbershoot and the Gourmand World Cookbook Award, ~~but I'm not sure that is sufficient for the "significant critical attention" required by WP:NAUTHOR.~~ Philg88 ^♦talk 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable poet with critical reviews of her poetry in reliable sources, independent sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moving to keep following addition of new sources sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:27, 26 June 2014 (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, also salted--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3Man Band[edit]

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

The subject has been deleted three times at AfD within the last two years at 3MB. Most recent AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3MB (3rd nomination) Now to avoid the salting at that title it was recreated here. The subject still fails WP:GNG and this should have be G4ed, but why not make us waste time goubg through a fourth AfD in two years, when the subject has been deemed not notable three times already. STATic message me! 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the most interesting of all of the versions of this article we have seen. Quite in-depth in parts for an article which consensus has deemed not notable numerous times, yet clearly lacking in others, and even reading as a timeline at times, for whatever reason.LM2000 (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also best to salt this and all future incarnations. It's rater astonishing to see how many times the original article has been deleted.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-- There is absolutely no evidence of notability with any of this. If the original article did not stand, one can look and see that this is of the same tempo and content with more fluff added to it. Still doesn't meet notability standards! --Canyouhearmenow 01:36, 2 July 2014 (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) 06:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Liberal Arts Program[edit]

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

A particular academic major at a college. Of no interest except to their own students and possibly alumni. Doesn;t seem to fit in any speedy category. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable program. A heavily flawed article which is full of sales pitch, weasel words, dubious referencing ("Look, Ma, I read Harold Bloom!"), directory/course program listings, excessive detail, and sentences that make little sense, so there's little point in merging. I hope the article wasn't written by a graduate or faculty member, because it's not going to do the college's reputation any good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Any verifiable info about this should be placed in Great Books. Shii (tock) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Colapeninsula said it all. The name is too generic for a redirect, but a sentence about this program could be added to Saint Mary's College of California. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2014 (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.

[1] Alternative Medicine, Second Edition: The Definitive Guide Pages 35, 36, 86, 87, 140, 466, 486, 621, 642, 665, 748, 765, 830

[2] The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles By Bruce H. Lipton Page 132

[3] HEALTH DISCLOSURE: The Sequence to Obesity & Disease By Adam Masters[1]

[4] If Someone Speaks, It Gets Lighter: Dreams and the Reconstruction of Infant Trauma By Linda Share Pages 136, 228

[5] Journey to a Brave New World By David Watts Pages 65 to 66

[6] Lifestyle Choices ... Up to You! - By Ginger Woods O'Shea Page 205

[7] Nurturing the Unborn Child: A Nine-Month Program for Soothing, Stimulating, and Communicating with Your Baby - by Thomas R. Verny, Pamela Weintraub [2]

[8] Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating - by Jeffrey M. Smith [3]

[9] Sightings By Susan Michaels Page 130

[10] Swamp Gas Times: My Two Decades on the UFO Beat - By Patrick HuyghePage 144

[11] The Trickster and the Paranormal - By George P. Hansen Page 451

[12] User's Guide to Natural Treatments for Lyme Disease - By James Gormley, Caren F. Tishfield Page 39 - 44

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]