Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 March	29 March >

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Householder[edit]

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

The only cited source is a namecheck. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives. --Jakob (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Former Speaker of a state House of Representatives. Next time, consider following WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search shows ample substantial RS coverage for this person, enough to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Former Speaker of a state House of Representatives. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. No ambiguity that this subject is and meets the notability criteria. 50.181.214.118 (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a person has been elected to and served in a state/provincial/territorial/federal legislature, then per WP:POLITICIAN they're always a valid article topic — and thus even a single "namecheck" source which properly confirms that fact is sufficient to start an article with. Tag for {{refimprove}}, by all means, but keep as a duly elected holder of a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close. Meets WP:NPOL on spec, and even if it's not currently in the article there's more than enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:17, 29 March 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 speedily deleted by User:Orangemike per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTBALL FOR FRIENDSHIP[edit]

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

No google news hits, no rs references on the article. seems to be a press release for the gas company that sponsors it. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTBALL FOR FRIENDSHIP is a project of Gasprom. This is article about Forum 2013: http://www.gazprom-football.com/en/Football-for-friendship-Detail/en/87.htm Information of Forum 2014 will be announced on this monday

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. Tawker (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Elise Hayden[edit]

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

Every source cited in this article is a publicity listing which will have been supplied by the subject's management. The claim to notability is extraordinarily thin (one part in an underwhelming TV movie), and the history shows a lot of very obvious PR activity. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. The awards listed are for the productions in which she performed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:ENT at this time, and I'm unable to find sufficient coverage for this person to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 01:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedoes not yet meet WP:ENT BerkeleyLaw1979 15:11, 4 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic kinesiology[edit]

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

Violation of WP:FRINGE as no independent sources seem to use the term as an actual subject. It is possible to find people who talk about "holistic kinesiology", but not as a proper subject (just as a description of kinesiology). jps (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:FRINGE#Independent sources -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fringe sources, per Nom and Roxy. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. If this is not word salad, I don't know what is:

Holistic kinesiology is a form of alternative medicine similar to but different from applied kinesiology whilst very similar in approach and beginnings the professional requirements for the two professions have varied in their paths.
— Holistic kinesiology

Bearian (talk) 22:18, 2 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Benor[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only sources present in previous incarnations of the article were in violation of WP:PSTS and removed as soapboxing. jps (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 12 in a well cited field fails WP:Prof#C1: not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Uncertain I am not sure h index when not analyzed further is helpful for people who are clinicians, not researchers. But:

The highest cited articles are 139, 115, 99 ; I think articles with this level of citation might show notability-- h=17 can been 17 articles each with 17 citations, which is non-notable, or 17 articles, 14 of which have 17-50 citations, and 3 have 99-100 which might be .

One of the articles is a review in Medical clinics of North America, a respected mainstream journal aimed at practitioners

Worldcat shows a number of books, also, tho none have substantial holdings.

The citations in GS are almost entirely in alternative medicine journals. I personally have a considerable prejudice about most of this field, especially those parts that can be called "Energy medicine" , which is the subject's area. I therefore watch out for the tendency to think people in that field unimportant. Nonetheless, I rather doubt he's a major figure. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Literally the only notable reference to the subject is what seems to be a biography/advertisement written by the person himself. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:06, 31 March 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) 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina in historical context[edit]

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

Outside of "comparisons" which is already in the parent page, this is pure original research Delete Secret ^account 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--12george1 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
much delete Pure OR.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Completely unneeded, could be merged into the main article to the extent anything stands up.BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see what a lot of it has to do with Katrina, and there's nothing really necessary to be merged. Unless there's a source discussing all of this, which I doubt. ansh666 17:28, 29 March 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. Thanks everyone for your participation. Please assume good faith with this closure! SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Choudhary[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR JMHamo (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:50, 31 March 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. Thanks everyone for your participation. Please assume good faith with this closure! SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Asthma Education Certification Board[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the coverage isn't really third party, all the coverage I found was from asthma related websites or books, nothing in mainstream news. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 11 March 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 16:44, 21 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think an organization has to have major news coverage to be considered notable. However, I'm not finding much about this organization other than the NAECB examination itself – and those appear to be guides on how to pass the exam, flash cards, etc, along with a slew of military and government websites that simply list how the certification ties in with their program. Reliable sources, but not enough substantial coverage, in my opinion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:29, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturba Nagar[edit]

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

Article is promotional in nature, but the G11 tag was removed because it wasn't "irredeemably" promotional (all due respect to the editor who removed the tag). In addition, there's definitely a notability issue: Kasturba Nagar is smaller than a neighborhood, and I could not find good sources for it in the search engine. In addition, I'm not really sure that the article even makes a serious claim of notability. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't list all areas smaller than neighborhoods unless there is evidence of secondary notability. Sounds like a perfectly nice place, but without indication of notability... BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sounds like a fit for WikiVoyage. The promotional material could simply be removed, but agreed that the notability is questionable. There do appear to be sources out there, but nothing substantial. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:40, 3 April 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Donor Relations Professionals[edit]

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

The sources in this article are essentially press releases and promotional material. I deleted half of them as original research; they were links to companies that provide seminars for them, includes as "references" to the fact that they have seminars provided by external companies. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 22 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary... you know the drill. I do see PRs and passing mentions, but nothing more yet. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. What's amazing is that this has existed for 5 years. Created, and tended over the years, by a WP:SPA (Special:Contributions/DonorRelationsGuru) whose user page reads, To do list: -Create ADRP page -Send out URL -Alert Mary. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 6 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mintcoin[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency that fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 20:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing a whole lot in the way of coverage. Nothing at Wall Street Journal, for example. Nothing significant in Google Scholar and such. There's this but it look like a blog. Very little in the way of coverage from sources independent of the subject. Most of what I'm seeing comes from sites offering advice on how to trade, or what to invest in, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=450381.0;topicseen one of the major altcoins on bit coin talk. Official thread is 500 pages long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.154.81 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't meet WP:GNG, could not identify any independently published no reliable sources covering the topic, and none are cited in the article. I do not consider altcoinauthority.com, altcoinherald.com, or cryptoscribe.com, which all discuss the subject, to be reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we need a guideline specifically for cryptocurrencies for editors to work to. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Getting started has a dozen links to helpful articles, and guidelines like WP:GNG cover what went wrong with this article. In most cases articles like these seem to come from very new Wikipedia editors, who haven't found the guidelines yet. There is so much to read, it's very understandable that a new editor misses some basics like citing reliable sources. ––Agyle (talk) 05:08, 31 March 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. Tawker (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huntercoin[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency that fails WP:GNG, and goes a level ahead to also start calling itself a "massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game". Possibly violates WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 20:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, I have not had time to fully flush out a complete article, and am attempting to do it piecemeal as time permits. You can check the "Game" section to see that I have not written much there at all, which is purely due to time constraints on my part. I have also left out images and many references for the same reason. Marking this article for deletion is extreme and premature. Does it need improvement? Certainly.

Please take the time to revisit the article and understand what it is talking about. You say, "and goes a level ahead to also start calling itself a 'massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game'," which indicates to me that you haven't read the article and understood it, or that you don't know/understand what Huntercoin is and as such cannot make sense of the article. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game then examine how that applies to Huntercoin to understand how/why it is a 'massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game'.) That's not surprising though as the issues and technologies behind it are complex and not generally well-understood by many people. The core issues are all mentioned in the article, but no attempt to explain the significance of them is made. e.g. The issue of "human-mineable" is mentioned, but not explained in any significant detail. Similarly, the issue of parallel merged-mining is mentioned, but implications and analysis are left out (intentionally). When time permits, I will revisit those and post further information along with references. They are not minor issues, and are far from simple. To properly address those with decent references will take time.

You also say, "Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency," which indicates to me that you probably don't understand cryptocurrency technology very well, the relevant issues involved, the general criteria for a "crapcoin/shitcoin", or what Huntercoin is. You can do a diff of the Huntercoin source code with any other cryptocurrency to see that it is not a "copy & paste" coin like so many others are.

For disclosure, I am not a part of the Huntercoin development team. I do have some Huntercoins, but I also have significant holdings in many other cryptocurrencies as well. I started this article because Huntercoin is the most significant innovation in the cryptocurrency space in a long time. User:RenegadeMinds — Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that your coin can become notable, as it is a very intriguing concept. I know altcoins are used in casino games online, but this is the first I've heard of an RPG using coins, which is why I actually gave your article the rare benefit of the doubt and looked for sources for a couple of days instead of just sending it to AfD immediately. Sadly, I couldn't find anything. My advice to you is to immediately request that it be moved into your userspace, where you can work on it without the fear of it being deleted for a period of time. Just know that you actually have to work on it and find good sources other than blogs or forum posts, or it's eligible for deletion again. I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but we have many of these "shitcoins", as you call them (you've hit the nail on the head), be created for the sole purpose of promoting them, and it's gotten to the point that some users adopt a "delete immediately, rinse, and repeat later" policy. I'm one of those people, and I rarely back out, but your particular coin is just so unique and different that if you start digging deeper for good sources, this might actually have a place here. I want you to prove me wrong that this isn't notable. Citation Needed | Talk 13:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear on a couple points, this isn't "my" coin. I am not a part of the development team. Also, while Huntercoin (HUC) is used in some casino-type games (I made no reference to those in the article), Huntercoin itself "is" a game. That is, Huntercoin is 1) a cryptocurrency, 2) a game, 3) a massively multiplayer online game, 4) a serverless MMOG, and 5) completely decentralized. It is not an RPG though. I left that part of the article out, i.e. Huntercoin is a prototype for the Chronokings game, which is a full MMORPG, but Huntercoin itself is not an RPG. It bears iteration that the game doesn't "use" coins -- the game "is" a coin. This is the "human-mineable" facet of the coin that is still not fully understood by anyone (myself included) and the implications are profound (though not suitable for Wikipedia as there are no real sources to cite for that). I fully understand that there are far too many crapcoin/shitcoin/scamcoins out there. Innovation in the cryptocurrency space is often overshadowed by copycats and shysters (Catcoin is a good example of a "metoo" shitcoin. I will continue to add sources and update the article as appropriate, but I do have limited time. ——— As for moving it to my userspace, I'm not sure that's a great approach. For example, I purposefully left the "Game" section rather spartan so that I could focus on other more mundane/boring things that others might not take the time to do, e.g. adding references, etc., with the hope that someone else would flesh out the "Game" portion in more detail. i.e. I do not want to be the only one contributing here, and the game section is rather easy for many other people to add to. But I don't expect that to happen overnight. I have since backed up the article locally, so if it does end up being deleted, I will simply continue to work on it and repost it with significant additions of both content and references as I complete those. However, that is far from ideal, and defeats the purpose of a community effort to share knowledge, i.e. I am an expert on the topic, but I am not the only expert. ——— Regarding "find good sources other than blogs or forum posts," there is a problem there — the world of technology moves at a far faster pace than the academic world, and we will not see any sort of academic treatment of the relevant topics for several years at best. (There are treatments of the relevant topics, but they are extremely abstract, and would require far more time than I can afford to properly integrate into the article. The topics are mostly mathematical and about problems in computer science. To make sense of them in a sane manner that is understandable for regular readers is a challenge at best.) If you delve deep enough into technology, the forefront of it is in newsletters, blogs, mailing lists, and the like. I've been over this far too many times where the only reference available for some technological problem is some esoteric mailing list or an IRC chat dump. Those sources are increasingly shifting to more accessible social media, such as forums. Also, the primary method for cryptocurrency announcements is the Bitcoin Talk forum. It is simply the source. Satoshi Nakamoto released his paper in the same manner, i.e. one of those esoteric communication channels outside the mainstream. At worst, I have posted this article ahead of its time, with respect to notability. But I am certainly not shilling for a "shitcoin". I would invite you to visit http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1579 and get a few HUC to try the game so that you can better understand what it is — Huntercoin is very far from intuitive until you actually experience it, i.e. you can experience the blockchain directly (though only partially) through playing the game. You will need to download the game and sync the blockchain though, which is several GB (plan on that taking a day or so). I can assist if you need. I am certain that Snailbrain would also assist you if you PM him through the Bitcoin Talk forums or the Namecoin forums. RenegadeMinds (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to me it doesn't seem obvious how a cryptocurrency is also a game. Correct me if I'm wrong, mining - the process of maintaining the block chain - can be played as a game in huntercoin, rather than just using a computer to process it? I think a reference standard should be written for crytocurrencies to be included on Wikipedia. This would aid administrators and editors avoid some of the repeated discussions. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jobpatterns - Yes, that Huntercoin "is" both a cryptocurrency and a game at the same time isn't obvious at all until you actually try it. And yes, in addition to parallel, dual-algorithm merged mining, coins are also mined by humans that play the game (or humans that write bots to play the game for them). I'm not certain what you mean by a reference standard though. That seems like it would be rather difficult to do given the amount of new approaches and new experiments with cryptocurrencies. For example, since Huntercoin came out, there is at least 1 other coin that has come out with parallel, multi-algorithm mining. Prior to Huntercoin there was no such thing as parallel, multi-algorithm mining, so things like that would be disruptive to any kind of reference standard. On the other hand, it could be that any of those that disrupt the reference standard would be demonstrating exactly the kind of notability or innovation that would make it interesting. Perhaps that's the point? I am quite certain that we will see even more initially confusing technologies evolve in cryptocurrencies. RenegadeMinds (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. By reference standard I wasn't talking about citations. It would be a guideline specific for cryptocurrencies, to define a standard for inclusion to wikipedia. It would most likely mention the type of citations that are likely for this technology. At the moment many cryptocurrencies are added then nominated for deletion. The standard would speed up the this process and give authors of new articles something to work to. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if making some sort of cryptocurrency WikiProject will be able to regulate articles and keep them to standards. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's definitely an interesting concept, but that doesn't establish notability, complete failure of WP:GNG. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever that it comes close to meeting WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet General Notability Guidelines guidelines due to lack of multiple independantly published Reliable Sources with reputations for fact checking. Agree with Lewis, looks interesting, hats off to the developers for such a wild deviation from run-of-the-mill alt coins.

Note to User:RenegadeMinds: "notable" in these discussions refers to a very specific definition of notable that Wikipedia uses as the basis to include articles about a subject. When someone says it's not notable here, they don't mean it in the generic sense (i.e. that people aren't talking about it or that it's not a novel concept), just that it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (which I've linked in the prior paragraph). It all boils down to third-party coverage by reputable sources. If Huntercoin really catches on, coverage in mainstream media will follow, and Wikipedia coverage will follow that. A tip on hastening that is for a promoter to issue a well-written press release that's easy to turn into an article. It also helps to write to specific journalists who have covered somewhat offbeat alt coin topics with a link to the press release. It's one of a thousand cryptocurrencies, but probably in the top 25 most interesting I've heard of, and it seems newsworthy on a slow news day. ––Agyle (talk) 02:15, 5 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kilrea[edit]

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

While this article was kept in an earlier deletion discussion in 2006, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing rules were very different then than they are now — WP:BLP1E didn't exist yet, for example, and we were a lot more loosey-goosey at the time about actually requiring WP:RS to be directly cited in the article itself, and WP:POLITICIAN hadn't yet been codified as excluding unelected candidates for political office. Thus it's time for us to revisit whether the article actually meets current standards or not. The only substantive notability claims here are that he was a candidate for mayor in 2003, and ran again but then dropped out before election day in 2006; much of the article, further, is sourced (via offsite links inserted directly into body text, rather than via properly formatted references) to unrecoverable dead links and primary sources. In 2006, the argument that any "competitive" candidate in an election should be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, whether they actually won it or not, certainly still held some sway — but it doesn't anymore, and what we have eight years later is a poorly sourced BLP of a person who hasn't established genuinely encyclopedic notability for anything besides being an unelected candidate. Delete unless somebody can beef it up with a much stronger notability claim and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable unelected candidate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other credible claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have gotten much tougher here, so an article that would have been kept in 2006 might be deleted in 2014. The only real allegation of notability is as a perennial candidate; otherwise, I'd support a speedy deletion. 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

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. Tawker (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Studio[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no indication of notability, text is gibberish in places eg event scene has become as can Produce that I made use of it is a full 3D Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find two sources, IGN [1] and RPGamer [2]... but nothing else at all other than Youtube videos. I don't believe enough coverage exists to pass WP:GNG, unless someone can find some print sources. This was back in 2000 on the Dreamcast, and only released in Japan. -- ferret (talk) 01:11, 29 March 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. Thanks everyone for your participation. Please assume good faith with this closure! SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Davies (artist)[edit]

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

PROD contested because it's "not clear the subject fails GNG", but the reason for PROD was that this is an unsourced WP:BLP. Which it is. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article sees significant sourcing improvement by closure. An article doesn't have to "clearly" fail WP:GNG to get deleted, if it clearly fails WP:BLP. Although that said, you probably should have used {{blp prod}} instead of regular {{prod}} when prodding it — that process offers much less latitude for subjective personal opinions to enter into the matter. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not an 'Unsourced BLP' because coverage of her work since the 1990s is listed at the bottom of the page. Granted some of it will no doubt be images only, but the Daily Mail features for example give biographical information and show she has been noticed internationally. Needs a "No footnotes" template, not an AfD. Sionk (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the Daily Mail, her McDonalds Happy Meal project has received some attention as well.[3][4] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Daily Mail, Happy Meal sources above, and even a few images at PDN reach just over GNG in my view. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 5 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Girl on Earth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found for this song. I would have suggested a redirect to the parent album article, but there is another topic with the same title so that should be moved over with a hatnote to direct readers looking for the PUSA song. Gongshow talk 01:26, 4 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sturdy[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable artist made by a single-purpose account with an obvious COI. Can't find any reliable references and even if the references given in the article are valid they are questionable in terms of reliability and depth of coverage. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article portrays him as a Literature teacher who does a bit of painting and poetry (the paintings seem unremarkable). I can't find anything other than occasional bios and social media mentions. The two alleged news sources sound vague and minor. Certainly fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above criticism. I also feel that if this person had even one complete book published by a respectable, mainstream non-self-publishing commercial or academic press, that would satisfy notability. But so far as I can tell, there is no such book. Littlewindow (talk) 19:07, 30 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Ruffelle[edit]

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

Borderline speedy deletion candidate. The IMDb shows she is a minor bit part actor. The info about appearing in an advert is cited to the advert. Like her husband's article, this relies mainly on name dropping and a brief mention in a brief news article about Eliza Doolittle. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Qwfp (talk)
Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject's roles to date do not meet WP:ENT, and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 01:28, 4 April 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. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Armenian diaspora communities[edit]

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

This article is being nominated for deletion primarily because it is a mirror of a near-identical list on the Armenian Diaspora page. The Armenian Diaspora is spread across the globe, true, but do we truly need another page to display information that is readily available on the main page? And where do we stop? The list style is somewhat strange: if this is truly an article about the largest Armenian diaspora communities then should it limit itself to the top 5 or 10 cities? That seems arbitrary and suggests a list that is relative in terms. If so, then where's the cut off? Jerusalem is given as the city with the smallest of the largest Armenian communities, which suggests that 1,000 is the cut off. But why stop there and not 900 or 500? I think the answer is irrelevant. For me, it seems that the whole discussion is not necessary, that we have a perfectly good article which presents the same information in a more relevant context, and that it would be better if this article was either merged into the Armenian Diaspora page or deleted altogether.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:58, 28 March 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 March 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I already said on this article's talk page, the Armenian diaspora article is long enough and incorporating this table into that article will make it even longer. Plus, this is not the only such article. There's Jewish population by urban areas. Considering the fact that both Armenians and Jews are known for their diasporas, I don't see how this article is "needless". Contrary to the nominator's claim, this is not a "near-identical list". The last time I checked, countries are different from cities and regions. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff does exist and is besides the point. The Armenian Diaspora article is not long and actually can be trimmed since there are so many superfluous citations on pop. figures and other irrelevant data. The same information found here can easily be integrated onto that article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like a valid and useful list. In addition to the Jewish diaspora example, this is also pretty similar: List of U.S. cities with large African-American populations.--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there would be a useful project to organize the "list of largest ___ population" lists, but that's no reason to delete this one. Perhaps the best solution is to make the naming more consistent for these sorts of lists. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:26, 30 March 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. Some issues with article, but it appears editors are working them out, from reading the discussion I believe a keep is warranted Tawker (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly artificial intelligence[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete Since the subject appears to be non-notable and/or original research, I propose to delete the article. Although the general issue of constraing AIs to prevent dangerous behaviors is notable, and is the subject of Machine ethics, this article mostly deals with this "Friendliness theory" or "Frendly AI theory" or "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" which are neologisms that refer to concepts put forward by Yudkowsky and his institute, which didn't receive significant recognition in academic or otherwise notable sources.
Comment - I completed the nomination for IP 131.114.88.73. ansh666 19:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The IJ Good / MIRI conception of posthuman superintelligence needs to be critiqued not deleted. The (alleged) prospect of an Intelligence Explosion and nonfriendly singleton AGI has generated much controversy, both on the Net and elsewhere (e.g. the recent Springer Singularities volume)

Several of the external links need updating. --Davidcpearce (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I'm the user who proposed the deletion) There is already the Machine ethics article covering these issues. The Friendly artificial intelligence article is almost entirely about specific ideas put forward by Yudkowsky and his institute. They may be notable enough to deserve a mention in Machine ethics, not an article on their own. Most of the references are primary sources such as blog posts or papers self-published on MIRI's own webiste, which don't meet reliability criteria. The only source published by an indepdendent editor is the chapter written by Yudkowsky in the Global Catastrophic Risks book, which is still a primary source. The only academic source is Omohundro's paper which, although related, doesn't directly reference these issues. As far as I know, other sources meeting reliability criteria don't exist. Moreover, various passages of this article seem highly speculative and are not clearly attributed, and may be well original research. For instance: "Yudkowsky's Friendliness Theory relates, through the fields of biopsychology, that if a truly intelligent mind feels motivated to carry out some function, the result of which would violate some constraint imposed against it, then given enough time and resources, it will develop methods of defeating all such constraints (as humans have done repeatedly throughout the history of technological civilization)." Seriously, Yudkowsky can infer that using biopsychology? Biopsychology is defined in its own article as "the application of the principles of biology (in particular neurobiology), to the study of physiological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms of behavior in human and non-human animals. It typically investigates at the level of nerves, neurotransmitters, brain circuitry and the basic biological processes that underlie normal and abnormal behavior."

Anon, like you, I disagree with the MIRI conception of AGI and the threat it poses. But if we think the academic references need beefing up, perhaps add the Springer volume - or Nick Bostrom's new book "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" (2014)? --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several issues here: the first is that Friendly AI is and always has been WP:OR. That it has lasted this long on the Wikipedia is evidence of the lack of interest to researchers who would have otherwise recognized this and nominated deletion sooner. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Second, even if you manage to find WP:NOTABLE sources, this does not substantiate an article for it when it can and should be referenced in the biography for the author. Frankly, that is a stretch itself, given that it doesn't pass WP:TRUTH as a verifiable topic, but I don't think anyone would object to it. Third, in WP:TRUTH, the minimum condition is that the information can be verified from a notable source. This strengthens the deletion argument, as there are no primary, peer-reviewed sources on the topic of Friendly AI. And it is not sufficient to pass notability by proxy; using a notable source that references non-notable sources, such as Friendly AI web publications, would invalidate such a reference immediately. Fourth, even if we were to accept such a stand-alone article, it would be difficult to establish it to an acceptable quality due to the immense falsehood of the topic. This kind of undue weight issue is mentioned in WP:TRUTH. Therefore, and in light of these issues, I strongly recommend deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, for better or worse, all of the essays commissioned for the recent Springer volume ("Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment:

Amnon H. Eden (Editor), James H Moor (Editor), Johnny H Soraker (Editor)) were academically peer-reviewed, including "Eliezer's Friendly" AI paper; and critical comments on it. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke WP:COI, as you, David, were involved with the organization, publication, and execution of that source. And you were also a contributing author beyond this. Any administrator considering this page's contents should be made aware of that fact. Now, moving back to the main points: firstly, Friendly AI as a theory is WP:PSCI, and any Wikipedia article that would feature it would immediately have to contend with issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. That Springer published an anthology of essays does not substantiate the mathematical or logical theories behind Friendly AI theory. In fact, this will never occur, as it is mathematically impossible to do what the theory suggests and intractible in practice, even if it were. That this wasn't caught by the referees calls into question the validity of that source. Strong evidence can be brought here to counter the theory, and it would end up spilling over into the majority of the contents of the article as to why it is WP:PSCI. Should every Wikipedia page become an open critique on fringe and pseudoscientific theories? I would hope not. Further, to substantiate a stand-alone article, this topic will need to have several high quality primary sources. Even if we somehow allow these issues I've raised to pass, that final concern should be sufficient to recommend deletion alone. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Lightbound, you wrote "it is mathematically impossible to do what the theory suggests and intractible in practice". What, specifically, are you claiming is 'mathematically impossible', and how do you know this? On what basis are you confident in your original-research mathematical disproof of a published, peer-reviewed academic anthology? Have you even read the book in question? -Silence (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are referring to has already been discredited with multiple links within the comments here with verifiable links and quotes. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 09:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which refutation you're referring to; to my knowledge, Singularity Hypotheses is still taken seriously as an academic publication under Springer, and it's certainly peer-reviewed. But you're also changing the topic. How about just answering my question? Then we can move on to other topics at our leisure. What is the 'mathematical impossibility' you have in mind? -Silence (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, if I have a declaration of interest to make, it's that I'm highly critical of MIRIs concept of "Friendly AI" - and likewise of both Kurzweilian and MIRI's conception of a "Technological Singularity". Given my views, I didn't expect to be invited to contribute to the Springer volume; I wasn't one of the editors, all of whom are career academics.

Either way, to say that there are "no primary, peer-reviewed sources on the topic of Friendly AI" is factually incorrect. It's a claim that you might on reflection wish to withdraw. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) The Springer pubblication is paywalled, I can only access the first page where Yudkowsky discusses examples of anthropomorphization in science fiction. Does the paper substantially supports the points in this article? Even if it does, it is still a primary source. If I understand correctly, even though Springer is generally an academic publisher, this volume is part of the special series "The Frontiers Collection", which is aimed at non-technical audiences. Hence I wouldn't consider it an academic pubblication.

I think that the subject may be notable enough to deserve a mention in MIRI and/or Machine ethics, but not notable and verifiable enough to deserve an article on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, there is not a single primary, peer-reviewed journal article on the scientific theory of "Friendly AI". And there is a very logical reason why there is not, and it is related to why it was published in an anthology. "Friendly AI" can not survive the peer-review process of a technical journal. To do so, such a paper would need to come in the form of a mathematical proof or, at the very least, a rigorous conjecture. As pointed out above, the book is oriented towards a non-technical audience. Again, even if we let this source pass (which we shouldn't), this is not sufficient in quality or quantity to warrant a stand-alone article. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, your criticisms of Friendly AI are probably best addressed by one of its advocates, not me! All I was doing was pointing out that your original claim - although made I'm sure in good faith - was not factually correct. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still strongly support deletion. David, feel free to cite the actual rigorous mathematical conjecture or scientific theory paper that directly entails the "Friendly AI" theory and I'll gladly concede; however, if you cite the anthology from Springer, then it has its own issues, though largely moot as one source is not enough for a stand-alone article. That a source is from a major publication does not automatically make it sufficient to establish the due dilligence in the spirit of WP:NOTABLE, especially in light of the arguments made against it above. You could replace "Friendly AI" with any pseudoscientific theory and I would (and have, in the past) respond the same. This is a significantly weak minimal POV that can scarcely stand on its own outside of this encyclopedia. Yet, somehow, it has spread into many articles and sideboxes on Wikipedia as if a "de facto" part of machine ethics! That no one has taken issue with it until now is that it has simply been ignored. Lastly, I would point out that if your primary concern was WP:POV, the article could have reflected that before it was nominated for deletion, as it has been in place for years, and you have ties with its author and those interested in its theme. Again, sharing a close connection with the topic and or authors should be noted by administrators. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, what are these mysterious "ties" of which you speak? Yes, I have criticized in print MIRI's conception of Friendly AI; but this is not grounds for suggesting I might be biased in its favour (!). --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, in the interest of keeping this on topic, I'm not going to fill this comment section with all the links that would show your affiliations with many of the authors of the Springer anthology source you mentioned, and the author of the "Friendly AI" theory. Anyone who wishes to do that can find that information through a few Google searches. It is sufficient for WP:COI that you share a close relationship with the source material, topic, and reference(s) you are trying to bring forward. This is irrespective of your intentions outside this context. And note that this is supplimental information and is not neccessary to defend the case for deletion. I digress on further comment to keep this focused. Still waiting on that burden of proof that there is a scientific paper that entails "Friendly AI" theory. I'm not sure there is much more that anyone can really say at this point, as, unless new sources are brought forward this seems to devolve into trilemma. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, the ad hominems are completely out of place. I have no affiliations whatsoever with MIRI or Eliezer Yudkowsky.

As to your very different charge of having "a close relationship with the source material, topic, and reference", well, yes! Don't you?

How would ignorance of - or a mere nodding acquaintance with - the topic and the source material serve as a better qualification for an opinion?

How else can one make informed criticism?

This debate is lame; our time could be more usefully spent strengthening the entry.--Davidcpearce (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a final closing perspective, which is independent of my former arguments and notwithstanding them. Consider this article as an analogy to perpetual motion, but before we knew that it was an "epistemic impossibility". This is a concept that is mentioned in the perpetual motion article as well. The problem with having a stand-alone article on this fallacious topic is that it shifts the burden of proof onto editors to compile a criticism section for something that is so wantonly false that it is unlikely to be formally taken up. That is to say, disproving this is simple enough that one can point to the Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems for the theoretical side, and cracking and reverse engineering for the practical side. But these are basic facts within the field, and this basic nature is part of the problem of establishing WP:NPOV; while the world waits for an academic to draft a formal refutation of an informally stated concept that hasn't even been put forward as a stand-alone mathematical conjecture, the article would remain here on the Wikipedia as WP:OR. I believe this clearly violates the spirit of these guidelines, and that knowledge of this asymmetry has been used as an opportunity to present this "theory" as something stronger than it actually is. That this isn't just a matter of debate, but something so incredulous that it has been nearly totally ignored by the mainstream scientific community. That should be a strong indicator of the status of this "theory". --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, pointing out to administrators that you may be involved in WP:EXTERNALREL is not an ad hominem; it is a fact that you contributed to the Springer source, and it is a verifiable fact through simple Google queries that you know the author(s) involved in the article. This is important for judgement in looking at the big picture of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Thankfully, someone was able to bring this information to light so that it could at least be known. What to be done about it is up to administrators. My only purpose in pointing out a fact was to provide the whole truth. I do not have a WP:COI with this topic as I did not create the theory nor contribute or collaborate with others who did. The spirit of WP:EXTERNALREL is that you are affiliated or involved in some non-trivial way with the contributors or sources or topic of concern, which is completely distinct from a Wikipedian who is absolutely putting the interest of this community first. And, in the interest of this community it should be a non-issue that this article can not stand on its own. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, I was invited to contribute to Springer volume as a critic, not an advocate, of the MIRI perspective. So to use this as evidence of bias in their favour takes ingenuity worthy of a better cause.

--Davidcpearce (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review what is meant by WP:COI. Again, the issue isn't just intention but proximity. And here is the evidence that you helped plan the book. That you weren't merely a contributor who happened to not know anyone involved. This proves the proximity of WP:EXTERNALREL: "He will be joined as a speaker by David Pearce, who has been actively involved behind the scenes in the planning of the book, and who contributed two articles in the book." This is useful knowledge to anyone making a judgement on this page. Of the two citations you brought to the table to use, both of them are WP:EXTERNALREL. What is being stated is that there is significant proximity to the sole ensemble of resources for which you are providing to defend the notability of the article as a stand-alone topic. There are more links available if desired, but I think this shows that this isn't conjecture on my part. By the way, still waiting on that scientific journal article on the theory of "Friendly AI" that you said was not factual on my part. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lighthound, forgive me, but you're missing my point. I'm a critic of the MIRI conception of an Intelligence Explosion and Friendly AI. Many of the contributors to the Springer volume are critical too.

This critical stance is not evidence of bias in its favour! --Davidcpearce (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving your comments deep consideration and have not missed your points. Again, it isn't about pro/con. I don't make the decision on the deletion, but others should know your involvement. The issue is that you originally raised two sources to defend this article as stand-alone, but it is about your proximity to those sole sources you are providing that is part of the issue. It is not to say they are invalid because of this, but that it is need to know information for someone making the final decision. That has been done, and we need not discuss it further. This isn't even the primary concern of the deletion of this article. Can you actually provide any credible 3rd party sources that you didn't orchestrate or were involved with? Can you show, objectively, why this "theory" merits its own dedicated article? Also, what about the arguments that this is an impossible concept, and therefor will always be in lack of equally credible POV to dismiss it, as I mentioned above? I've asked you to prove to us that I was wrong that there exists nothing in the technical scientific literature on the theory of "Friendly AI". I know I certainly can't find it, despite reading the literature daily. This could have been solved with a quick Scholar search. But I understand you won't be doing that because it doesn't exist and can't exist due to the nature of its impossibility. So, please, do prove me wrong, and bring forth at least one or two really strong notable sources. Otherwise, I still strongly recommend deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 02:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, any Wikipedia contributor is perfectly entitled to a use a pseudonym - or indeed an anonymous IP address, as did the originator of the proposal for deletion. Where a pseudonym becomes problematic is when it's used to attack the integrity of those who don't. I have not "orchestrated" any literature - popular or academic - favourable to MIRI / Friendly AI. My only comments on Friendly AI have been entirely critical. So it's surreal to be accused of bias in its favour. If the Wikipedia Flat Earth Society entry were nominated for deletion, I'd vote a "Strong Keep" too. This isn't because I'm a closet Flat Earther.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, David, claims of bad faith are not going to help your case. The statements made are factual and evidence/references have been provided; that is enough to prove WP:COI. Again, it doesn't require us to form conjecture about your agenda, only to show proximity. Regardless, this does not solve the notability issue of the source, nor the issues of WP:OR as per the comments above. This has now been repeated several times. I'll be stepping back from this as I believe all that is needed has been shown in all the comments above. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, a willingness to engage in critical examination does not indicate favourable bias - any more than your own critique above. We both disagree with "Friendly AI"; the difference is that you believe its Wikipedia entry should be deleted, whereas I think it should be strengthened - ideally by someone less critical of the MIRI perspective than either of us, i.e. a neutral point of view.

Perhaps I should add - without claiming to know all the details - that I am troubled by the lack of courtesy shown to Richard Loosemore below. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am Richard Loosemore, and I am also a contributor to the recent Springer volume ("Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment: Amnon H. Eden (Editor), James H Moor (Editor), Johnny H Soraker (Editor)). That book is not sufficient justification for keeping the Friendly artificial intelligence page: it was one of the poorest peer reviewed publications that I have ever seen, with credible articles placed alongside others that had close to zero credibility. Also, it does not help to cite people at the Future of Humanity Institute (e.g. Nick Bostrum) as evidence of independent scientific support for the Friendly artificial intelligence idea, because the Yudkowsky organization (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) and FHI are so closely aligned that they sometimes appear to be branches of the same outfit. I think the main issue here is not whether the general concept of AI friendliness is worth having a page on, but whether the concept as it currently stands is anything more than the idiosyncratic speculations of one person and his friends. The phrase ″Friendly artificial intelligence″ is generally used to mean the particular ideas of a small group around Eliezer Yudkowsky. Is it worth having a page about it because there are pros and cons that have been discussed in the literature? To answer that question, I think it is important to note the ways in which people who disagree with the ″FAI″ idea are treated when they voice their dissent. I am one of the most vocal critics of his theory, and my experience is that whenever I do mention my reservations, Yudkowsky and/or his associates go out of their way to intervene in the discussion to make slanderous ad hominem remarks and encourage others not to engage in discussion with me. Yudkowsky commented in a recent discussion: Comment dated 5th September 2013 ″Warning: Richard Loosemore is a known permanent idiot, ponder carefully before deciding to spend much time arguing with him.″. And, contrariwise, I have just returned from a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, where there was a symposium on the subject of ″Implementing Selves with Safe Motivational Systems and Self-Improvement," which was mostly about safe AI motivational systems ... friendliness, in other words. I delivered a paper debunking some of the main ideas of Yudkoswky's FAI proposals, and although someone from MIRI was local to the conference venue (Stanford University) and was offered a spot on the program as invited speaker, he refused on the grounds that the symposium was of no interest (Mark Waser: personal communication). I submit that all of this is evidence that the ″Friendly artificial intelligence″ concept has no wider academic credibility, but is only the speculation of someone with no academic standing, aided and abetted by his friends and associates. If the page were to stay, it would need to be heavily edited (by someone like myself, among others) to make it objective, and my experience is that this would immediately provoke the kind of aggressive response I described above. LimitingFactor (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: David Pearce, you are indeed a respected critic of FAI, so I would not attack your position just because you were also involved with the Singularity Hypotheses book. My reasons for disagreement have only to do with the wider acceptance of the idea and the maturity of those who aggressively promote it. Your presence in the book and my presence in the book are clearly not the issue, since it is now clear that we take opposite positions on the deletion question. So perhaps that argument can be put aside. LimitingFactor (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limitingfactor, many thanks, you're probably right; I should let it pass. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limitingfactor and David are clearly choosing to ignore what WP:COI means and why their close relationship to the people and processes behind the sources they promote would need to be a consideration. Your close proximity to the source(s) are sufficient. You can continue to WP:CANVAS, David, and bring in more meat puppets, but that isn't going to help the fact that this article can not stand on its own without a significant body of notable sources. You claimed early on that there were in fact notable sources. You claimed I was incorrect that no technical/mathematical scientific paper or rigorous conjecture exists that is published from a real source, then failed to provide or substantiate that. And the reason is because such a paper does not exist in the literature. You've been asked several times to provide some sources and citations beyond the two you did. It has been explained that even withstanding those two sources, and if there were even no issue with them, that they are not enough to allow this page to stand as-is. All you or anyone else has to do, instead of ignoring well-established guidelines, is to provide some strong sources beyond the two which have been contested. And they are contested beyond the need the fact of proximity; they don't hold up even if you had been someone else suggesting them. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 17:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aghh, Lighthound, please re-read. I am a critic of "Friendly AI"! I would like to see a balanced and authoritative Wikipedia entry on the topic by someone less critical than me - not polemics. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have been contacted. This is out of hand. Again, it isn't the primary issue whether or not you are polemical or not; for the topic or against the topic; pro or con; love it or hate it. The sources are contested here and are invalid, regardless of the fact that you helped create and organize them. But what does matter is that you are clearly canvasing at this point. The points to be made have been made. It has been requested that someone — anyone — please provide credible sources other than these. Let us end this futile discussion on whether or not you are for or against whatever topics. It has never been the issue, only that it is important to know that you are pumping the source because you contributed to it and helped orchestrate it. For or against it, that is still WP:COI in my view. And you continue to pump them when we've asked that you provide at least a few alternatives. But we know why that isn't going to happen! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, you've left me scratching my head. I am a critic of "Friendly AI", not a partisan. I neither contributed to the entry nor helped "orchestrate" it. If you've seriously any doubts on that score, why don't you drill through the history of the article's edits? --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Please let's try to avoid personal attacks. I don't Davidcpearce canvassed Limitingfactor into the discussion, since they voted in opposite ways. Also, in my understading of WP:COI, it is sufficient that users who have professional stakes in the subject or personal relationships with people or organizations associated to it declare them. Limitingfactor declared them himself and in the case of Davidcpearce they are public domain, since he is commenting under his real name. The fact that they have these relationships doesn't automatically invalidate their votes and comments, it just means that their votes and comments should be considered while taking into account that these relatioships exist. Also, the fact that Davidcpearce suggested to add a source he was involved with doesn't automatically disqualify that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was repeat what I've said above at least four times. And, again, these are not "personal attacks". This is all externally verifiable information. It is canvasing because he is bringing people into the discussion from outside the Wikipedia to support his arguments. This particular argument was that he was somehow for or against this topic, which has been pointed out repeatedly to be irrelevant and not the issue. The real issue, which I keep trying to steer us towards, is that even if we accept this anthology of essays as a credible source, it is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on an impossible topic. It has already been repeated that it is not sufficient that he is proximal to it to invalidate it alone, but that is valuable need to know information. This was all stated over and over again. Reading the full discourse is helpful to prevent this kind of circular argumentation. Again, let us stop this. Provide more sources, please. The ones listed are contested because of their non-technical status, and that they don't actually substantiate the theory beyond speculation! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Just to restate my case for the deletion proposal, it seems that this "Friendly AI" is a neologism WP:NEO created by Yudkowsky to encompass a number of arguments he and people closely associated to him have made on the subject of Machine ethics. A more apt title for the article would be something like "Yudkowskian Machine ethics" or "Eliezer Yudkowsky's school of Machine ethics", but the point is that these views are not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone Wikipedia article. This is evidenced by the fact that the only available sources are primary sources written by Yudkowsky and his associates, and most of them are non-academic and in fact even self-published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Neologism created by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Can be more than adequately covered in articles about the ~~highschool~~elementary school graduate who invented the term or his Harry Potter fanclub. Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...and adopted by big-name Oxford professor. There are powerful arguments against singleton AGI; Eliezer Yudkowsky's home-schooling isn't one of them.

(cf. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9126040 ) --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source with a close relationship. One of the authors is the director at MIRI. The other author is from The Future of Humanity Insititute. It is a verifiable fact that these organizations are aligned and in public cooperation with each other as evidenced by their websites and the cross-promotion of their member's books and articles. This does not represent a strong, notable secondary/tertiary source. There needs to be something more. Further, the article is only 7 pages long and is devoid of logical or mathematical rigor on the topic. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don;t care about who wrote the article or created the terminology. I think its a reasonable topic, and not really covered in detail in any other existing article. Further, I think it's likely to be expandable. There are sufficient secondary sources from other than the devisor of the term. What the article needs is some editing for clarity. (and not mentioning the creator's name quite as often) DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's clearly untrue. There are no notable, credible secondary/tertiary sources on the theory of "Friendly AI". Prove us wrong by linking them! It can't be done; because, they don't exist. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by the inflammatory allegations being made in this discussion (by Lightbound). First, I am not a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, nor did David Pearce contact me in any way, directly or indirectly, about this discussion. I have long had an interest in this page because it is in my field of research. I came here because there was a discussion in progress, and I felt that I had relevant information to offer.

Second, I did not become an editor in order to comment here: I have been registered as a Wikipedia editor since 2006.

Third, you do not seem to have noticed, Lightbound, that when I entered the discussion I voted against David Pearce! I therefore makes no sense to claim that I was canvassed into the discussion by him.

Fourth, The conflict of interest issue is a red herring. I do not stand to gain by the deletion, and I exposed my involvement in the community of intellectual discourse related to the issue here straight away. ::: It would help matters if the discussion from here forward did not contain any more accusations. LimitingFactor (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a conscientious reader starts at the top of this page and follows to the bottom, they will see that careful attention has been paid to separating the fact that the WP:COI notice was informational/supplimental in content. And that all arguments are as it pertains to the quality of sources. Again, and this has now been repeated many times, it is not about whether or not someone is for or against the topic, but to root out the true quality of these sources and citations. So far, no one has provided any significant citation or reference, and all that is being done is an attempt to spin or frame my responses and informational annotations about all relevant facts as ad hominem, which is in bad taste. I've already repeatedly asked that we drop this informational line of discourse on the WP:COI issue. So, you can remain troubled, but there is no issue other than the quality of the sources. To which it presently stands that there are none, and all that has been brought forth is not even substantive of the subject matter. All of this leads to the fact that this is an article long overdue for deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stepping back from the fray... I think the deletion proposal is not an easy one to decide, because the topic itself (the friendliness or hostility of a future artificial intelligence) is without doubt a topic of interest and research. I voted to delete because the page, as it stands, treats the topic as if it were the original scientific creation of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Most of the page is couched in language that implies that his 'theory' is the topic, but nowhere is there a pointer to peer-reviewed scientific papers stating any 'theory' of friendliness at all. Instead, the articles that do exist are either (a) poor quality, non-peer-reviewed and sourced by people with an activist agenda in favor of Yudkowsky, or (b) by credible people (Bostrum, Omohundro, myself and others) but few in number and NOT lending credibility to Yudkowsky's writings. That imbalance makes it difficult to imagine a satisfactory article, because it would still end up looking like a pean to Yudkowsky (on account of the sheer volume of speculation generated by him and his associates) with a little garnish of other articles around the edges. LimitingFactor (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thank you for dropping that previous line of discourse. I am in consensus with the above comment. What LimitingFactor is alluding to at the end of his comment is explained by philosopher Daniel Dennett in his paper The Higher Order Truths of Chmess. That discourse on a philosophical topic does not actually mean that it makes sense or is substantial or real in any meaningful way. So far, all the sources that can be found are merely this kind of discourse. There has never been an actual technical mathematical or logical proof or rigorous conjecture published anywhere on the idea itself, only vague language and speculation. This supports the remarks echoed by LimitingFactor and the anonymous editor(s) above as well, ultimately showing that making a quality Wikipedia article on this topic would be a feat as impossible as the topic itself. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Secondary sources found:

a New Atlantis journal article
a New Atlantis journal article, reply to previous article
section 5.3 of the book "The Nexus between Artificial Intelligence and Economics"
chapter 4 of the book "Singularity Rising: Surviving and Thriving in a Smarter, Richer, and More Dangerous World"

The Omohundro paper is a RS independent of Yudkowsky, but looks more like primary research than a secondary review of FAI. The four sources above are in depth about FAI, and seem independent. The nexus book is from Springer and presumed reliable. The singularity book is from BenBella Books, a "publishing boutique" that may be reputable. Based on the two New Atlantis articles and the nexus book, this topic looks marginally notable per WP:GNG. The article is essay-like in parts and I agree with DGG that it is a bit promotional, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A marginally notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. Even if others don't find it notable, basic facts about FAI ideas (it exists, when it was coined, a short summary) are verifiable in reliable sources. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preservation of verifiable material is preferable to deletion. Machine ethics would be a reasonable target for such a merge. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of those articles above substantiate and rigorously define the concept of "Friendly AI" as a theory beyond merely being WP:NEO. Further, the books you linked are citing non-notable sources for the materials on "Friendly AI" theory and are only covering the topic in 2-3 pages maximum at minimal depth. Oppose Keep on those grounds. As for a merge, I oppose that based on the argumentation that it isn't clear that "Friendly AI" as a WP:NEO can be separated cleanly from this loose concept of the "theory" of "Friendly AI", which indeed has no credible sources which detail the subject matter. That is to say, people are saying that AI should be "friendly" and confusing or not seeing that there was indeed a speculative, non-rigorous fringe theory that specifies a kind of architecture for doing this. The Atlantic articles are blog-like, and directly link to the non-notable sources in question as well. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (OP) The "Singularity Rising" book by James Miller probably shouldn't be considered as an independent source, as the author has professional ties with MIRI: he is listed as a "research advisor" on MIRI's website and as you can see on the Amazon page, the book is endorsed by MIRI's director Luke Muehlhauser, MIRI's main donor and advisor Peter Thiel, and advisor Aubrey de Grey. The very chapter you cited directly pleas for donations to MIRI! The other sources look valid, however. I agree that the general topic of Machine ethics is notable, and Yudkowsky's "Friendly AI" is probably notable enough to deserve a mention in that page, but a stand-alone article gives it undue weight, since it is a minority view in the already niche field of machine ethics. In my understanding "Friendly AI" boils down to "Any advanced AI will be dangerous to humans by default, unless its design was provably safe in a mathematical sense". This view has been commented on and criticized by independent academics such as David Pearce and Richard Loosemore, among others, and therefore probably passes notability criteria, but most of the content of this article is unencyclopedic essay-like/poorly sourced/promotional content, and if you were to remove it, very little content would remain, and I doubt that the article could be expanded with high-quality notable content. Therefore, 'Delete or Merge seem reasonable. 131.114.88.192 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with a merge is that there still isn't a significant source on the actual theory of "Friendly AI". Thus, the merge would be based on a concept entailed by a neologism and wouldn't even stand on its own even in that context. A source merely mentioning it, referencing a non-notable primary source is still not actually telling us what this "theory" is in any concrete way; they are simply documenting an apparent controversy in an idea of whether or not machine intelligence can be benevolent, which is distinct from the actual non-rigorous concepts presented by "Friendly AI" as a theory. There are two sub-issues to be unpacked:

Distinguishing criticisms about whether or not AI can be made or to stay benevolent, which is more general than and not specific to the "Friendly AI" theory. This, doubtless, was part of the idea behind naming this theory in such a way. This is the issue with it being WP:NEO; the attempt to rebrand a concept and redefine what it means when its always been about what is already being covered under machine ethics as a whole.
Criticisms of the architectural/mathematical framework that is "Friendly AI" and "Coherent Extrapolated Volition", which are indeed not notable sourced concepts, and are WP:PSCI. This is also clear given that these concepts as an architecture are often presented or introduced in the context of science fiction/laws of robotics.

Thus, trying to merge doesn't solve the WP:NEO and WP:OR issues. The problems will remain: finding sources that do not merely discuss (and confuse) the two above issues, and finding sources that actually give a technically sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed proof or mathematical conjecture for the topic. That is, if someone is going to promote a new kind of physics or a new kind of communications theory, and we were going to cover that, we would at least need a strong source that fully details that concept. It would be fair enough to provide a criticism section under machine ethics that simply addresses the concerns of making AI benevolent instead of trying to force everyone into this lexicon, which is not only not widely supported but is becoming increasingly confused with the two points above. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over, Delete, or Merge (but not sure what to merge into). As it is, article is based on original research that does not have secondary reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Machine ethics. Not enough strong sourcing for this to merit its own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion isn't just that this doesn't stand on its own. It's that it doesn't stand anywhere. Merging doesn't solve the fact that the actual "Friendly AI" theory is WP:PSCI, of which doesn't get consideration of equal footing the same as POV and minor POV issues, as explicitly stated in those guidelines. Such a theory could never survive direct publication in a technical journal; this is why no one so far has been able to come up with an actual source that specifies unambiguously and rigorously what the theory of "Friendly AI" is. And the burden of proof is not on editors to keep pseudoscience, but to establish first with notable sources. All that the sources so far establish is that some people have been using the phrase "friendly AI" to refer to the act of making machine intelligence safe(er) or to discuss the theoretical implications. So, again, are we merging a neologism or merging the theory of "Friendly AI"? Neither appear to be acceptable, and for all the reasons that have been unveiled in the above comments. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Friendly AI is a concept in transhumanist philosophy, under widespread discussion in that field and the field of AI. I've never read that the concept itself is a theory. A hypothetical technology, yes. A scientific research objective, yes. A potential solution to the existential risk of the technological singularity, yes. Much of the article is unverified, and rather than the whole article being deleted, unverified statements can be challenged via WP:VER and removed. I suggest moving any challenged material to the article's talk page, where it can be stored and accessed for the purpose of finding supporting citations. The article needs some TLC, and is worth saving. The Transhumanist 23:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sounding board for our opinions, nor a discussion forum to debate WP:OR about a philosophical or speculative issue through talk pages. If we followed this suggestion, the entire article would have to be moved to the talk page, at which point it would simply become a forum. That you didn't know that "Friendly AI" is part of the "theory" along with "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" is part of the issue with neologisms, and why they are usually weeded out on this encyclopedia. The desire to have ethical machines is distinct, more general, and has been in existence, long before "Friendly AI" theory came onto the scene. If we want to have a topic about making machines ethical there is already an article namespace for that. If we want to talk about the pseudoscientific, non-credible, non-independently sourced fringe theory that is "Friendly AI", which is what this page is about, then that is another issue. I am repeating all of this; because, people are coming in and expressing an emotional appeal or vote without considering these issues or looking at the (lack of) evidence to support the existence of this original research on Wikipedia. I believe strongly at this point that someone needs to at least start moving this forward by providing strong sources that substantiate this theory. But, as mentioned before, those references do not exist. Had we been having this discussion while this article was a stub it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion, but it has embedded itself and slipped unnoticed for years because of its (non-)status in the field. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't present it as part of a theory, but as the theory. It is not the name of a theory. It's the article title we're talking about here, and whether it warrants a place on Wikipedia. Problems with the content should be worked out on the article's talk page. The term and subject "friendly AI" exists as a philosophical concept independently of the theory you so adamantly oppose. You could remove the theory from the page, or give it a proper "Theory of" heading, or clarify it as pseudoscience (there are plenty of those covered on Wikipedia). Deleting the article would be counterproductive. Because... The subject "friendly AI" is encountered as a philosophical concept so frequently out there in transhumanist circles and on the internet, that not to cover its existence as such on Wikipedia would be an obvious oversight on our part. And by "discussion" (in the field of transhumanism), I meant philosophical debate (that's what discussions in a philosophical field are). Such debate takes place in articles, in presentations and panel discussions at conferences, etc. In less than fifteen minutes of browsing, I came across multiple articles on friendly AI, a mention in a Times magazine article, an interview, and found it included in a course outline. But as a philosophical concept or design consideration, not a field of science. It was apparent there is a lot more out there. (Google reported 131,000 hits). I strongly support fixing the article. The Transhumanist 02:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, in fact, a claim to a theory, and I quote the words of the creator of this "theory" and neologism from that non-notable source: "This is an update to that part of Friendly AI theory [sic] that describes Friendliness, the objective or thing-we’re-trying-to-do". My emphasis has been added so it is crystal clear. See, this is part of the problem. There is a pseudoscientific "theory" (read: not a theory) called "Friendly AI" and then there is the adjective enhancing AI that refers to the concept, practice, or goal of making an AI friendly, viz. benevolent. These are two very, very distinct concepts which have been laminated together and are trying to be used here to edge in an unsubstantiated theory. Again, there are no notable, credible, independent 3rd party sources on the "theory" of "Friendly AI", and this has been stated over, and over again now. As for wanting or desiring or wishing there was a canonical place to discuss "friendliness" of AI, this is not it unless it can be backed by significant quality sources. As it stands, machine ethics should be the place for the general overview of this field and the goals it shares. Anyone reading this so far should see clearly this distinction. This is intentionally obfuscated for a reason and it is part of why this is so difficult to separate out, unpack, and discuss. Please try to see the distinction that is not without difference. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title and the lead section indicate a concept, not a formal theory. Though Yudkowski and his capitalized "Friendly AI" and "Friendliness" were interwoven throughout the entire article. I've started to revamp the article, and have begun extricating the edged-in "theory" (per WP:VER), so that it can be properly differentiated from the general concept later (when someone is willing to include citations). The article is much more generic now. By the way, since the "F"riendly material was presented out of context, almost indistinguishable from the primary subject of the article, I've opted not to copy it to the talk page. It needs to be rewritten in context, if at all. I've got to go for awhile, and have left the "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" section for last, but feel free to pick up where I left off. The Transhumanist 05:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator(s) of "Friendly AI" theory have explicitly stated in numerous places that they attempt mathematical modeling and theories. But the problem is that there is not even a primary source that specifies the rigorous mathematical theory of "Friendly AI" or even a mathematical conjecture, let alone secondary and tertiary independent sources. I'm afraid I'm not sure what we could even do with this article except to make it a redirect into machine ethics the way that Strong AI redirects into Artificial General Intelligence. That would at least not give WP:UNDUE to a WP:NEO, which is what this page would quickly deflate to since we have now established it is an attempt at a WP:PSCI "theory". And there is no way we can credibly, reliably source such a distinction between "Friendly AI" as a "benevolence" colloquialism from the more general discipline of machine ethics. This was also pointed out in my comment below in response to User: Silence. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you will win the argument by ignoring the other side of the debate. But it doesn't work that way. The "Friendly AI theory" and "Friendliness" have mostly been removed from the article. So now the article for the most part deals with the common term "friendly AI". Continuing to argue against Yudkowsky even after he's been largely removed from the article, is starting to look like you are attempting a straw man argument. Also, your prolific replies to everybody imply that you think you can win by shear volume. But whether you acknowledge it or not, the generic topic friendly artificial intelligence (uncapitalized) exists as a philosophical concept. The term appears to get more use than the term "machine ethics". Note that "machine ethics" and "friendly AI" are not synonymous. The Transhumanist 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term you would be looking for would be ad hominem, but my comments are not about a person, but a concept, so it won't work out. It's not a Straw man argument, as I'm simply presenting a source which verbatim presents what I'm saying. Claims of bad faith do not equal bad faith. We've engaged in an AfD to consider deletion of the page. Removing or blanking, or even completely starting over doesn't resolve the issues that have been raised. Editing the article during the AfD doesn't change that we are in an AfD. The objective is to come to consensus, and that can not be achieved through editing the article. I am also not the only editor that has requested delete or merge, which would have been a compromise. My "prolific responses" are due to the initial canvasing that took place and defending against issues of WP:IS in the numerous sources, which, at first glance appear independent, but are actually by the same group of people working in concert. All of this has been documented with links. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against the article based on material that isn't even included in it anymore. That's a straw man argument. The article is well on its way to being repaired. The Transhumanist 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is noteworthy, as it's discussed extensively in the leading textbook in the field of AI, Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. The idea is also discussed in the Journal of Consciousness Studies by philosophers like David Chalmers, and by AI theorists in publications and conference proceedings surrounding artificial general intelligence (AGI). The topic can't be merged into Machine ethics, because 'build a safe smarter-than-human AI' is a much broader topic than 'build a moral smarter-than-human AI'. Software safety engineering, even for autonomous agents, is mostly not about resolving dilemmas in applied or theoretical ethics. (And 'Machine ethics' can't be merged into Friendly AI, because most of machine ethics is concerned with the behavior of narrow AI or approximately human-level AI, not with the behavior of superintelligent AI.) -Silence (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (OP). Russell and Norvig briefly mention "Friendly AI" in the context of machine ethics. Chalmers briefly and critically mentions Yudkowsky's "Provably friendly AI" in one paragraph of his 59-pages long paper "The singularity: A philosophical analysis". In general, mentions of "Friendly AI" in secondary sources are rare, brief, often critical, and always appear in a broader discussion of machine ethics. Moreover, even though Yudkowsky idiosyncratically uses the term "friendliness" instead of "ethics", is approach is all about how to incorporate an ethical system inside of an artificial intelligence. It is neither about "friendliness" in the common meaning of the word (the quality of "being friends") nor about safety engineering as commonly intended. Therefore, Friendly AI is a minority view inside the field of Machine ethics. It's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP, I disagree with your characterizations. The relevant section of Russell and Norvig is called 'The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence', which obviously includes machine ethics but is a broader topic than that. Russell and Norvig's description repeatedly mentions things like 'checks and balances' and 'safeguards', but never mentions 'morality' or 'ethics' or the like in the discussion of Yudkowsky specifically. Morality (and therefore machine ethics) is very relevant, but it's not the whole topic (or even the primary one, according to Yudkowsky). According to Yudkowsky, building a Friendly AI is primarily about designing a system with "stable, specifiable goals", independent of whether those goals are moral.

The fact that this topic gets discussed in the world's leading AI textbook at all establishes notability; it's fine if the discussion within that textbook is "rare" and "brief", since the textbook's breadth makes it remarkable that the topic is raised at all. As for whether discussions of this idea are "often critical", I agree. Yudkowsky's views are very clearly not in the mainstream, and it's important that this article be improved by including both a fuller discussion of what those views are, and a fuller presentations of published objections and alternative views. WP can handle controversial topics fine, as long as they're noteworthy enough to leave a paper trail through the literature. -Silence (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Sorry, but it seems to me that you are going through No true Scotsman route to argue that Friendly AI is not in Machine ethics. Russell and Norvig discuss it in a section which has "Ethics" in its title, and somehow it is not about ethics because they didn't drop the word in the specific paragraph? Come on! As for notability, I agree that the topic has some notability, but the notable and reliable material available is very scarce. If you where to combine all the reliable secondary source you would get perhaps two or three paragraphs worth of content. Is that enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? How does that compare with other views in machine ethics that may be even more notable among experts but don't happen to be backed by a large-ish community like LessWrong? Does having a stand-alone article for Friendly AI give it a fair representation, or undue weight? 93.147.153.8 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, about your statement: "most of machine ethics is concerned with the behavior of narrow AI or approximately human-level AI, not with the behavior of superintelligent AI". That is your opinion. The following is rhetorical, but explains why we have WP:WEASEL. How much is "most"? At what point does that subjective interpretation become justified in a neutral observer's eyes? Where has it been rigourously defined that there is a categorical exclusion in the type of automation or its level of complexity or "intelligence" that makes it outside the domain of machine ethics? These are not answerable in a way that would justify what it is you are attempting to do. The source from Russell and Norvig? I just looked at the table of contents and can't seem to find even a sub-heading on the mention of "Friendly AI" as a theory. Could you show a page number? Does this source substantially cover the WP:PSCI "theory" of "Friendly AI" as opposed to the neologism "friendly" being passed off as colloquialism for "benevolent"? Lastly, the original theory and all of the related original work, as non-notable as it is, has been regarding the philosophical, ethical, and theoretical implications of the ability for it to make decisions and definitely not about the "software safety engineering". If that is where we are headed then that is well outside the scope of this article's conception. Further, please see comment above (diff) pointing out that this article's topic is about an attempt at establishing WP:OR as a "theory". I provided, above, evidence of a claim to a "theory", which I am linking again for posterity. "Friendly AI" theory has never been about "software safey". By their organization's own admission, it's been purely a research and theoretical issue and not an engineering one. Here is a quote from the director of MIRI explicitly stating this in a recent article (literally, days ago): "If we can reformulate the important philosophical problems related to intelligence, identity, and value into precise enough math that it can be wrong or not, then I think we can build models that will be able to be successfully built on, and one day be useful as input for real world engineering." In fact, the entire post there is exactly about this, that it would be "unethical and stupid [sic]" to do so. This is their own words. It is exactly opposite of the claims you are making and by the very people pushing this fringe theory. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See section 26.3, 'The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence'. Friendly AI is also discussed in the book's introduction (p. 27), in its general discussion of human-level-or-greater artificial intelligence; 'Friendly AI' is one of the main terms it highlights as important for anyone acquiring an introductory understanding of the contemporary field of AI. And, yes, it's not just a homonym; Yudkowsky is cited multiple times, the term is capitalized, etc.

"That is your opinion." - It's my assessment. Whether it's my "opinion" depends on whether it's grounded in fact, since not all beliefs or judgments are mere 'opinions'. Beware of polemical framings. See e.g. the contents of Anderson and Anderson's anthology on Machine Ethics. There's a paper or two that discuss superintelligence, but most do not. "How much is "most"?" - Minimally: Less than 50% of machine ethics is about the ethics of superintelligent agents. "regarding the philosophical, ethical, and theoretical implications of the ability for it to make decisions and definitely not about the 'software safety engineering'" - Can you cite a source that shows this? This Luke Muehlhauser interview seems in tension with that claim: Muehlhauser repeatedly suggests that it's misleading to describe the AIs Yudkowsky/MIRI worry about in human terms, and that terms like 'decision' and 'goal' are mostly useful shorthands rather than anything philosophically deep. He suggests thinking of AIs as 'equations' or 'really powerful optimization processes' when we're tempted to overly anthropomorphize them. -Silence (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my response to User:Silence was deleted. In which I explicitly did substantiate the question they are asking. I'm going to have to go through the log to find it. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated my response to you, User:Silence to my actual original edit (diff). I deeply substantiated their position in their own words with those links, as I anticipated that such a thing would be contested. Again, the book you reference does not provide the mathematical theorem or mathematical conjecture of "Friendly AI" theory, which is the modus operandi of MIRI and "Friendly AI" theory. It's what it's always been about, and they explicitly eschew the "engineering side", as evidenced by their own words from articles just days ago. I don't feel that this is the place to have a technical or philosophical discussion on this topic. This is about whether this page should be deleted, and no one, not a single person, has been able to provide a source that substantiates the WP:PSCI of "Friendly AI" theory. Attempting to segue into another category based on the current wording and narrative coming out of MIRI isn't going to help substantiate this concept or this page, as that has never been and, by their admission, is not what "Friendly AI" theory is about. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 06:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my fault via an edit conflict as you were revising your comment. To respond to your added points: The article seems to mainly be about the hypothetical agent called 'Friendly AI', not about 'Friendly AI theory', the research initiative or AGI subdiscipline concerned with forecasting, understanding, designing, etc. Friendly AIs. I confess I don't understand what your concern is; the existence of the word 'theory' does not make a topic non-notable. (I'm also not clear on what you think the content of 'Friendly AI theory' is supposed to be; if it's a fringe belief, what belief, exactly, is it?) Certainly there are claims being made here, and hypotheses and predictions put forward; Wikipedia should report on those claims, citing both noteworthy endorsements and noteworthy criticisms of them.

"the book you reference does not provide the mathematical theorem or mathematical conjecture of "Friendly AI" theory" - This seems to be OR on your part. There is no such thing as a 'Friendly AI theorem' or 'Friendly AI conjecture'.

"no one, not a single person, has been able to provide a source that substantiates the WP:PSCI of 'Friendly AI' theory." - Er, no? Russell and Norvig has been cited. Go look at a copy of the text. If an AI topic gets cited in Russell and Norvig, that's the end of the discussion as far as notability goes. The only question now is how best to organize the content on WP, not whether the content is encyclopedic, significant, verified, etc. -Silence (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theory and it is also a goal. I know this is confusing, but that is due to the unfortunate naming of it. Here is the direct evidence that it is a claim to a theory by its creator, and I quote: "This is an update to that part of Friendly AI theory [sic] that describes Friendliness, the objective or thing-we’re-trying-to-do". My emphasis is added. What I am saying is that, as an article about the fringe theory, which does not exist in a mathematical formulation anywhere, it can not stand. It thus comes down to the article being about a goal that happens to be named "Friendly AI". Unlike the neologism we are debating, "Strong AI" has been in use for decades, but was successfully debated to be redirected, and it is mentioned in the lead of the AGI article. But only a handful of authors, relative to the decades worth of "Strong AI", have taken up this nomenclature of "Friendly AI", despite it having been around for nearly a decade. And it still took a significant effort to get that redirect done if I'm not mistaken. Based on this, it is definitely undue weight when we consider the balance of other topics in this field. Simply having a few sources do not constitute unrooting the entierty of existing literature on machine ethics. To have a full stand-alone article when a subsection with a POV balanced to the rest of machine ethics discourse would suffice on that page. It is undue weight especially because ultimately the entire point of "Friendly AI" was that there is and always will be only one way to do it right. And that is stated everywhere in its materials. Not only is that assertion untrue, the burden of proof rests on them, and any editor, that would try to bring WP:FRINGE here as a stand-alone topic. This isn't a complex issue, but it is obfuscated due to the naming. We all must accept the facts that evidence has shown that it is both a theory and a goal, often at the same time, especially from its adovcates. But if we are going to write an article on this, it has to be able to stand. Those sources you mention are not alone in name dropping the words "Friendly AI", and also confusing it as a goal and a theory. But nowhere do we have the credible materials we need, not even from a primary source, on the actual mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture of the theory itself. Hence, it collapses to purely a semantic issue about whether the goal of making AI "friendly" is or is not part of machine ethics. And, by their own admission, that is the area they work in; that they are purely theoretical, mathematical, and based on logic and decision theory, meta-ethics, etc. So it rightly belongs, at best, and that is a stretch, as a minor POV in machine ethics as it certainly is not widely accepted as part of the scientific consensus. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a theory and it is also a goal." - Neither of those is a well-defined term. By 'theory' you might mean a body of knowledge, a body of beliefs, a field of inquiry, a scientific theory, a scientific hypothesis, etc. By 'goal' you might mean a state of affairs that's desired, or the desire itself, or some concrete object involved in the desired state of affairs. Yet you seem to want to get a lot of work done using these amorphous terms, in spite of the fact that the article we're discussing is Friendly AI (the topic being: a specific class of hypothetical agent), not Friendly AI theory. A Friendly AI is a kind of agent, not a kind of theory; and the fact that there is a thing (or things) called 'X theory' that are associated with X, doesn't tell us anything directly about the nature of X itself.

'Strong AI' is a redirect because it's ambiguous, not because it's non-noteworthy. So I don't see any direct relevance to the term 'Friendly AI'.

"It is undue weight especially because ultimately the entire point of "Friendly AI" was that there is and always will be only one way to do it right." - That way being...? A topic can be noteworthy even if some people have normative beliefs about the topic. E.g., 'Marxism was proposed as the right way to organize society' is not a very good reason for deleting the article Marxism...! Likewise 'alternating current was proposed as the right way to transmit electric charge' is not a reason to delete the article Alternating current.

"nowhere do we have the credible materials we need, not even from a primary source, on the actual mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture of the theory itself" - There is no such 'mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture'. You confabulated it yourself. So it's not super surprising that you can't find the thing no one ever claimed existed..?

I already refuted the claim that Friendly AI theory is a subdiscipline of machine ethics. My claim wasn't 'it's an engineering topic, therefore it's not machine ethics' (which is a non sequitur, false, and has been asserted by no one). Rather, my claim was 'making an agent moral isn't the same thing as making it safe, and Friendly AI theory (the research project / subfield) is mainly about making it safe'. Obviously the two aren't unrelated, but they aren't in a subset relationship either. -Silence (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author of "Friendly AI" himself has said it is both a theory and a goal by the quotes I gave. We can agree to disagree on this, the direct evidence is in my corner on that. As for your WP:OR theory that we ought not merge or make it a POV in machine ethics, that's not relevant as I don't accept the rejection that an article called "Friendly Artificial Intelligence", which has been stated by the creator of the theory and the goal itself, and to which 90% of the article's body text refers, is not about "Friendly AI" theory, CEV, and the "Friendliness" goal. Any reader thus far should concede this point. Hence, the original issues I've raised stand. Simple contradiction in the face of such obvious evidence doesn't follow logically. It's interesting that anyone could ignore direct wording from the author of the very concept we're debating... I'm not buying that this article is not about that which its content clearly indicates it is. So, we are at an impasse and I don't see any further reason to continue our dialectic unless new arguments are presented. I rest my position against your points as they stand. If new arguments to which we can make progress on are presented, then I'll rejoin on those talking points. But since this is already getting extremely long, I won't just engage in simple contradiction. I feel the evidence stands for deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 07:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The author of "Friendly AI" himself has said it is both a theory and a goal by the quotes I gave." - Where did I say anything to the contrary? The point I made wasn't that there's no such thing as 'Friendly AI theory'; it was that the existence of 'X theory' doesn't establish that 'X' is non-noteworthy or otherwise unencyclopedic. Your original grounds for deleting the article were refuted in my first comment, so I don't know anymore what your new concerns are. Possibly you should re-propose deletion in a few weeks or months after you've looked at the sources I cited and had time to organize your concern a bit.

"As for your WP:OR theory that we ought not merge or make it a POV in machine ethics" - ??? Have you read WP:OR? You cite policy and guideline names, but in strange contexts that don't seem to have much to do with the contents of the WP-namespace pages.

"I don't accept the rejection that an article called "Friendly Artificial Intelligence", which has been stated by the creator of the theory and the goal itself, and to which 90% of the article's body text refers, is not about "Friendly AI" theory, CEV, and the "Friendliness" goal" - The article as it's currently written is about Friendly AIs, not about those things, which would be the central topic of articles called Friendly AI theory, Coherent extrapolated volition, and perhaps Friendliness in artificial agents. Obviously all of those topics are extremely relevant to the 'Friendly AI' page, but it's a fallacy of equivocation to conflate 'X is about Y' in the sense of 'X is in some way relevant to Y' with 'X is about Y' in the sense of 'Y is the topic of X'. -Silence (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a WP:FRINGE theory? I just found out this very page used to be called Friendliness Theory, which now redirects to this page and had previously been nominated for deletion. Here is the discussion on the talk page. So, that, plus the above arguments, should slam the door on that issue. This has always been both a theory and a goal. And, as a theory, it can not stand on its own, as I've repeated now many times. Show the peer-reviewed mathematical proof or mathematical conjecture to counter this. See above for many pieces of evidence that the author claims it as a theory as well. So much evidence at this point I can't see any reasonable editor continuing to contradict it in good faith. Strongly recommend delete. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a WP:FRINGE theory? I just found out this very page used to be called Friendliness Theory [....] And, as a theory, it can not stand on its own" - I can't tell whether you just aren't expressing yourself clearly, or whether you don't understand the varied ways the word 'theory' is used (or, e.g., that 'theory' is not the same thing as 'mathematical theorem', even in the context of mathematical logic) or the policies and community norms on WP. You seem to be an experienced editor, yet you don't seem to see the obvious problem with deleting all articles that are about 'theories'. No one has claimed that Yudkowsky's view is the mainstream, establishment AI view. But it's acknowledged and engaged with and taken seriously by at least some of the biggest names in mainstream AI, so the topic is encyclopedic, by ordinary Wikipedia standards.

You seem to want to delete it because you dislike Yudkowsky's views; but 'Yudkowsky's views are false' is not grounds for deletion, any more than 'Yudkowsky's views are a theory' is. I noted already that Marxism is not a mainstream view in contemporary economics, and is a 'theory' -- a fringe one, at that -- yet 'Marxism' gets its own page. Ditto intelligent design. So, again, I have to note that your arguments are just not relevant to the issue of deletion. If you think Yudkowsky is a pseudoscientist, go find reputable sources saying as much, and help make WP's coverage of the topic comprehensive and useful. Deleting every topic you think is pseudoscientific isn't how WP works; WP reports on demarcation controversies in the sciences, but it does not try to adjudicate them all. Nor does it try to use its inclusion criteria to bludgeon noteworthy views it dislikes out of memetic existence.

"Show the peer-reviewed mathematical proof or mathematical conjecture to counter this." - A third time, I note this is something you made up, not something with any basis in any external text, including Yudkowsky's. You simply made the leap from 'Yudkowsky is writing about something mathematics-related and used the word "theory" for something epistemic, THEREFORE Yudkowsky is claiming to have a mathematical conjecture, THEREFORE if the formalized conjecture is not provided the topic is not encyclopedic'. None of these leaps in logic has any textual basis. You really did just make them up. If you're interested in promoting encyclopedic accuracy and not spreading fabrications of any sort, you won't keep repeating this claim until you've actually found it stated in the literature.

"So much evidence at this point I can't see any reasonable editor continuing to contradict it in good faith." - Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of the many community norms you need to spend a bit more time with. If you find it inconceivable that any human being could possibly disagree with you without being evil or deceptive in some fashion, that probably says more about the limits of your imagination than about the limits of human error. Suffice it to say that I disagree you've provided much evidence (or even, at this point, a coherent argumentative skeleton into which evidence could be fit). Yet I'm pretty sure I'm not an evil mutant troll who hates Wikipedia and puppies. :) So, maybe dial the theatrics back, at least a notch or two? -Silence (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a strong case has been made for keeping the article. Now, the main thing concerning me is the length of this discussion compared to the length of the article. We should get back to building the encyclopedia, by working on the article itself. The Transhumanist 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the evidence and arguments brought up is not consensus. We're in disagreement and that's OK, as I've stated above. Insulting or attempting to attribute statements I've not made is not going to help reach consensus. I would appreciate if we kept the discussion on the arguments, as it is becoming difficult to see good faith. Also, I did not nominate this page to be deleted. So, attempting to frame the "deleting every page you see" bit is simply WP:BAIT, of which I'm not biting. Attempting to paint my position as being against a person or persons is also not going to help your case, as I am and always have been on policy; thankfully, I've been always civil and my comments reflect that here. I understand this must be frustrating, but, again, I would appreciate if we addressed ideas and arguments and not each other. I wonder who to contact when an administrator is doing this? I'll have to look into it. It is really unfortunate to see. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbound: Your edits connected to this AfD make up over 11% of your contributions to Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON and give it a rest. BMK (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would expect a very long discussion like this to affect my stats, as I have been away from the Wikipedia for years and have traditionally been a light editor. Also, entry length does not model contribution. If that were the case, those who do line-editing would also seem biased on complex topics requiring extended discussion. I've been responding to people in good faith and on point, and with new materials and evidence. I hear you, and I'm stepping back regardless, but it is because evidence is being ignored. Nothing further can be done. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Fringe or not, this concept is a relevant subject of debate. The topic was discussed in the 1990s already, in the context of extropianism and transhumanism. Current article does need balancing. I don't see how a merge with machine ethics would improve. Therefore I vote to keep and expand. — JFG ^talk 11:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (OP) Please provide reliable sources. The fact that a meme may have been circulating in online communities is not, by iself, grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. 131.114.88.192 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing problems still apparent, e.g. Norvig source added in this diff is WP:1R and WP:E=N:, i.e. existence ≠ notability, does not substantially cover topic (because it is a tertiary source) in way that "removes need for research" as per WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Should be WP:IMPACT and WP:SCICON from "significant multiple independent sources". Source from Springer, "Singularity Hypothesis", proven to have issues with WP:INDEPENDENT as early comment above (diff) indicate with evidence. Editors attempting to WP:AKON by editing main article, but still have not brought numerable sources to overcome objections. Opinions on the WP:FACTORS and subjective importance of the topic do not overcome sourcing concerns. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the Russell/Norvig citation mostly renders your concerns moot. If the only citation for a topic at a given time is Britannica, it's probably noteworthy, because Britannica filters strongly for noteworthiness. Similarly for a highly esteemed introductory biology textbook and a biology topic; and, here, for a highly esteemed AI textbook and an AI topic. You also don't seem to have noticed that I added two independent scholarly references to the lead, not one; so your citations of WP:1R and WP:E=N are strange.
Your citation of WP:TRIVIALMENTION demonstrates to me that you haven't looked at the source text I cited, yet are still making strong claims about it based on some intuition that it must be a trivial, passing, tangential, one-sentence mention. This is not the case, in spite of the obvious space constraints imposed by the huge range of topics R/N have to cover.
Your self-citation seems to only be about David Pearce and whether he was involved in Singularity Hypotheses (which could be used to establish COI, or, equally, to establish relevant expertise). I don't see anything about whether or why Singularity Hypotheses is not a reliable source.
WP:AKON is not relevant here, as your claim 'this is not a noteworthy article' is what's under dispute. Adding references to establish notability is precisely what's called for in notability AfDs, and it doesn't make sense to dismiss scholarly sources on the grounds that if nothing were useful for establishing notability, the article would need to go. Go actually read WP:AKON. (And the new sources.) -Silence (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:MASKing at this point. The Norvig source is a tertiary source by definition; an introduction/survey/handbook to the whole of the field of AI. Even if interpreted as secondary by some stretch, one or two sources do not constitute WP:SCICON and "significant independent sources". To be clear: we're talking about only a few sources brought forward since AfD started, and that's all that has been brought forth when we exclude the Springer volume. And as for that Springer volume, which has been refuted by many editors above, two points: (1) again, it is not just violating WP:INDEPENDENT because of the orchestration evidenced, but is further weakened that authors/individuals closely related to the author of "Friendly AI" are part of the volume. Evidence of that relation can be shown here and here by cross-referencing the authors of the Springer volume. On the MIRI staff page you will find the names: Helm, Bostrom, Yudowsky, Muehlhauser. Bostrom's connection to Pearce is public knowledge, but can be shown here, as an article from The Guardian and here, under the FAQ of Humanity+, the organization they co-founded. To be WP:INDEPENDENT means fully and completely independent, not merely the appearance of independence. I suspect this is why there has been such heated WP:POV RAILROAD against me for pointing out these journalistic facts. (2) The Springer volume is listed as "Content Level: Popular/general" and is part of the "The Frontiers Collection" series and not part of the technical journals. This was pointed out above by other editors as well, which I already diffed. I'm not going to reply further on this line of argumentation. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory books are generally a mix of secondary and tertiary material; large portions of Russell and Norvig are I think secondary, because the field of AI itself is relatively fast-changing and new. I don't know whether to classify the Friendly AI stuff as secondary or tertiary; since the distinction is fuzzy to begin with, it's probably a mix of the two. Secondary and tertiary sources are both good for citation; secondary sources are preferred for more detailed presentations, tertiary sources are good for broad overviews. When the tertiary source is as widely cited and respected as R/N, it's also useful for locating the topic in its academic context and establishing notability. Primary sources too are fine for citing encyclopedically, as long as it's to fact-check a secondary source or cite an isolated claim, not to synthesize multiple claims in a novel way.

"we're talking about only a few sources brought forward since AfD started" - Yes, that's normal in notability AfDs. People who think the topic is noteworthy throw some quick references into the pot, and we reassess. AfDs are short, so in most cases the entire job of adding new sources isn't finished during one, but if in such a short span of time we find a lot of really high-quality references (as in this AfD), that's very promising. -Silence (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for Reformatting[edit]

(this section moved to the talk page by Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER)

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 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branislav Arsenijević[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:26, 31 March 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.

<! --Relisted-->

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. → Call me Hahc21 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isogai dynamic therapy[edit]

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

A kind of Japanese chiropractic which has essentially no trace outside of alt med websites. I found exactly one GBook hit (other than the originator) and that seems to be a passing reference in a bibliography or the like. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the shortage of reliable sources makes it impossible to build a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:FRINGE#Independent sources at all forthcoming. jps (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. support above comments -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:27, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Sanderson (politician)[edit]

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

City councillor with no properly sourced indication that he's attained sufficient notability to get past WP:POLITICIAN — article cites only a single local community weekly newspaper for sourcing, and city councillors in non-metropolitan cities do not qualify for articles on here just for being city councillors (and no, the fact that he's running for mayor this year doesn't boost his notability, as candidates do not qualify for articles just for being candidates either.) He'll certainly qualify for an article if he wins election to the mayoralty, but he's not entitled to keep this article in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he passes general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to re-creation if he wins. Brampton is a city of 523,911 people, so its mayor or other city-wide official might be considered notable. However, we have deleted most candidates' articles who were merely also-rans. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:39, 4 April 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. Thanks everyone for your participation. Please assume good faith with this closure! SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mekhai Andersen[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR. Only one acting role. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an example of someone who has only ever been cast because of who his mother is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 1 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nerang–Broadbeach Road[edit]

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

An article about an unremarkable road in Australia is not notable Mackatackastewart (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. No broader significance. Not a state highway. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query. As a non-Australian I'd appreciate some clarification about the status of this highway, It is marked as part of Queensland state route 90. (Various references to this are in the article, on Google Maps, in the listing at Road routes in Gold Coast, Queensland, and here.) This indicates that the road is under the responsibility of the state transport department. Is that still not a state highway? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then either a Redirect to Road routes in Gold Coast, Queensland, or an expansion and rename to Queensland State Route 90 that covers the entire route, might well be appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, re above: Per WP:AURDNAME, articles on routes are generally not created - they don't have the same significance in Australia as they do in other countries, and generally aren't themselves notable - they are rarely used by sources, with the road names used instead. As for this particular road, here's another source indicating that it is a state road, classified as as a district road (state controlled), and there has been some coverage of the road in terms of the 2018 Commonwealth Games [5][6][7][8][9]. There is also info on previous work on the road: [10][11]. I also have access via my university library to the following journal article: Williams, B. (2006). Two projects make one road. Construction Contractor, p24, ISSN 13249525, with the second paragraph stating "THE $38 million Nerang Broadbeach Road Four Lane Median Divided Duplication on the Gold Coast is an unusual earthmoving operation in a totally traffic controlled environment." The rest of the article gives more details on the construction works. I think that's probably enough coverage to show notability. There's probably more info in offline sources, but I'm on the other side of the country. (If I get more time this weekend I'll expand the article a bit, but I am busy in real life) - Evad37 [talk] 01:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the earlier comments were made when the article was an unsourced one-line stub, I have since expanded it with the above sources - Evad37 [talk] 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This road seems to have attracted sufficient attention. There are a few published newsletters related to the upgrade, commentary in parliament and other reputable places about it, it's traffic, connecting roads, and history at least as far back as 2000. I think that there is a greater depth of sources than one some population centres and certainly enough to write a suitable article. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Evad37's points and extensive improvements to the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 1 April 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 delete a7, YouTube film, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baraha (Indie Film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. A quick google of the subject didn't result helpful. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Iannella[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the W-league is a fully professional league, but this assertion is not backed up by any evidence. C 679 15:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this article and many others based on the assumption that the W-League is professional. What is the saying on this? --SuperJew (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. @SuperJew: the W-League may contain professional teams / players, but it is not currently considered FULLY professional as per the WP:FOOTY list. This list is not concrete however and if you believe that you have significant, reliable sources indicating that it is fully pro, please raise this at WT:FOOTY, where consensus can be debated. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. W-League is not a fully professional league. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hack (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - W-League is a league which many high ranking and notable women's football players have played in and play in currently. By the standard of 'fully professional' in women's soccer, any player from the FA WSL who's only record of notability would also be subject for deletion. Weelilbit (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the aim of WP:NSPORTS is identify sportspeople who are likely to meet WP:GNG. If a sportsperson fails WP:NSPORTS but meets WP:GNG, they are notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. There is little to suggest that this particular sportsperson meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the fact that she is in her third club of her senior career and in her previous club she made 29 appearances and scored 24 goals, I would argue that there is some form of notability there. I am new to all of this, but if the issue in question is her notability, I would argue that this meets that criterion. Again, I am new at this, so guidance and assistance in these matters is appreciated. Weelilbit (talk) 01:43, 4 April 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. Tawker (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Condition Report[edit]

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

Already exists at Financial analysis. No substantial contents, no reference. Perhaps qualify for deletion under WP:CSD#G2 criteria of speedy deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD-A10. Could be merged but there is not much to merge. Vectro (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mark viking's notes and changes. Vectro (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten the article with sources. FCRs are different than ordinary financial statements. The sources in the article and others not included, such as [12], show that there are multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth, so that the topic passes WP:GNG. If kept, I suggest that the article be moved to Financial condition report, per WP:TITLE. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 30 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susa (software)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Quite difficult to search because of other meanings of Susa but gbooks turns up nothing with the search terms ["susa" dsp] or ["susa" c++]. Spinning Spark 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:FAILN, also worth mentioning that Susa Framework has been Speedy deleted in the past, created by the same User. JMHamo (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON ~KvnG 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find evidence to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT at this time. Gongshow talk 01:36, 4 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Rafi Mohamed Eshaq[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Googling this person reveals that they exist, but nothing more than that. No evidence provided in the article from reliable secondary sources, and the claim of having "pioneered" "the development of Bachelor and Master of Multimedia Degree Programmes in the country targeted for producing world-class ‘content developers’ in the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), Malaysia over the last 10 years" is not verified, if such a fluffily worded claim could make them notable in the first place. WP:PROF calls for something more than a publication record, and the supposedly notable things listed in the article itself cannot easily be verified and are questionable in their importance. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He exists, but his notability seems to be virtual only. --Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only tiny impact to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The proper GS link is here: [13]. Still looks short, but shows a fair bit more than the standard link above would have implied.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely enough for WP:Prof#C1 in a well-cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 30 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 03:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Parkash Sharma[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PROF or otherwise. Google Books and Scholar reveal nothing except for what appear to be a book or two by the subject. The positions they held, despite the fluffy wording in the article, don't make them notable, and many of the links in the article are dead and aren't to reliable secondary sources anyway. While DGG commented in an edit summary that they might meet the PROF guidelines, I don't see how. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mysterious scholar who hardly left a trace... --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine scholar. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Cannot find support for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:29, 30 March 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. WP:SNOW. This is slightly fast for a traditional SNOWBALL/IAR close, but given the number of established editors who have commented, as well as disruption by the article creator of a previous deletion prcess in the Joshi article, I believe we've given these articles enough time. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Chandra Joshi[edit]

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

Hoax? Utterly unverifiable, the claims in the article and the reality as seen on the Internet don't match at all. The article claims that "Mohan is one of the most famous modern Hindi poets. He is considered one of the major poets of the Hindi literature.", plus his "awards" list shows him being nominated (but never winning) multiple times for important-sounding but unverifiable things like "outstanding man of the 20th century". His publisher has no Web presence, neither have his books. Normally, for prominent HIndi poets, it's no problem to find some sources on Google and the like. Here: nothing at all. All very suspicious, making me believe that the claims in the article are false (or very, very highly exaggerated) and that we shouldn't have articles on him or his works. Fram (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Thupur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kewal Aapke Liye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kumauni Shri Ramcharitmanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ran into these earlier and could't find evidence for their nobility and also noted the considerable hype in them. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability found. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Kewal Aapke Liye as unambiguous advertising. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, can't find any reliable sources and I see all the articles are promotional. I think the creators are not constructive, they are using Wikipedia for advertisement. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 14:04, 29 March 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 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Goodman[edit]

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

Non notable artist. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches have located nothing in terms of critical attention that could demonstrate that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled him and also searched news, nothing there that I can see. No refs in the article itself. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 31 March 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Núñez[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this artist, although, the name similiarty to the president of Eastern Connecticut State University creates difficulty in finding sources. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn below[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Granted at the moment it looks like an unsourced BLP speedy deletion candidate, but it took me less than a minute to find a number of lenghty news articles, particularly because she's been active for 50 years, for example [14], [15], [16]. These need incorporating as inline citations. Sionk (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom Entirely happy to withdraw based on the sources provided by Sionk. Not sure how I failed on the source-finding there, but failed I did. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added three sources to the article, and done some modest amount of cleanup. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 30 March 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. Tawker (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Mawandia[edit]

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

Unsalvagable resume. Promotional wording is embedded throughout. Additionally, no arm's length-sources provided, however, even if sources were found, the article would need to be essentially rewritten from scratch. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't succeed in finding sources. Salih (talk) 17:13, 28 March 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 under WP:CSD#G3. ansh666 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shonang, Wonderville[edit]

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

A small village or landmark (unclear from the author's description) somewhere in Canlubang in the Philippines. No information available on what Wonderville might be or what place Shonang has in Wonderville (again, whatever that might be). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication here, or on Google, that this is even a real thing. The only ghit I can find for it is on wikimapia, which may well have been created by the same person, and similarly gives no indication that this isn't just made up. It's possibly just a test edit. Anaxial (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Page creator Siranglupa, Calamba (talk · contribs) seems very likely to be the same editor as Wonderville 2014 (talk · contribs) recently blocked for spam. Based on very similar language and punctuation errors. -220 of ^Borg 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 March 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 procedural close - duplicated nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawansukha Jewellers. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 22:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawansukha Jewellers[edit]

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

refernce cited really does not signify notablitiy Shrikanthv (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is already an open AfD on this, but the article creator deleted the notice and now it has been renominated. Any comments should really go to the original AfD. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro[edit]

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

Sad though it is, this seems to be "just another murder". I don't see how this case is any more notable than the thousands of murders that occur in the USA every year. The case seems to be ongoing, and there is substantial and I suspect unwarranted use of primary sources that may severely impinge on WP:BLP – court evidence etc whose use in these articles may need to be examined by someone with more US legal knowledge than yours truly. Most of the article is the almost exclusive effort of an IP editor, who I suspect may be somewhat connected to one or more of the victims, and it's highly likely this was meant to be a shrine of justice to the victims – there was a biography section that I have now excised. Ohc ^¡digame! 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user confusus has now been following me around trying to deleberately cause trouble this is obvious HARASSMENT and can have no other purpose - the article in question refers to the a serial killer in Arizona who amoung his victims includes the past president of several medical establishments - SHAM ON YOU confusus that a war over your erroreous use of date linking in INSTRISICALLY DATE-ORIENTED articles should escalte to your own personal vendete whereby you would attempt to bring dishounor to all those who tirelessly work on wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither a notable nor a high-profile crime, fails WP:N/CA. The excessive detail about the deceased is bordering on WP:MEMORIAL. WWGB (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic example of what NOT NEWS was intended for. It's a local story, There's no broader interest. Thee's nothing exceptional, or even particularly sensational it's written with absurdly excess detail for an encyclopedia. This is what newspapers are for, and they do it well. I have often opposed deletions under NOT NEWS for subjects where there is any degree of lasting or general interest or significance, but this is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the excess biographical details: yes, the nominator removed it, but it has been restored by the page creator, 68.231.15.56.[17] Incidentally they also removed the afd template,[18] for which I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but this is a local story with insufficient evidence of national or international coverage (WP:GEOSCOPE). The article itself rather confirms this by stating "The Shapiros' homicide was a shock to the Phoenix metropolitan community ...". The claim of "widespread attention in the national press" does not hold up: references to cbsnews.com and foxnews.com are simply repackaged local and agency reports. – Wdchk (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet WP:VICTIM. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject to re-creation if the convictions are appealed and overturned, or the case otherwise receives significant legal scholarship/commentary, case law, or statutory responses. This was a shocking, horrible murder. However, the news was entirely local, with the exception of concurrent Fox News and WCBS-TV stories in 2012. Many of the sources from 2013 are primary, such as minutes of the Maricopa County courts. There are virtually no secondary sources about the court case. WP:VICTIM requires "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role", which is missing here. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC) ... P.S. If even one co-defendant's conviction is overturned, the current article is practicially screaming "BLP violation!" Bearian (talk) 22:40, 2 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manyetik motor[edit]

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

Unsourced essay about Perpetual Motion (according to Google Translate). Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete given that it's not in English. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G12 - although being not in English is not a reason to speedy delete something, the tr-wiki article was deleted twice, the first time as a copyright infringement and the second as unencyclopedic (as far as I can tell). I took a random sentence, put it into google, and here are the results: [19]. (Note, the title translates to Magnetic motor.) ansh666 19:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Actually it is not Perpetual Motion. According to the article it is a newly designed motor. But unfortunatelly, it is not in English and it is unsorced. I called the editor in local language for fixes. Of course if not fixed soon, it should be deleted.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Ciolacu[edit]

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

Non-fully professional league football player (Romanian second league). The only reference (a simple statistics site) used does not qualify as significant coverage. - Andrei (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with ten appearances in Liga I, he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL per this and others. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 31 March 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 Southern Premier Soccer League. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Club América Soccer Academy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in the article, and none could be found online (nothing in News, very little hits in general[20]) Fram (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Premier Soccer League; no independent notability but possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per GS, a notable league, but not a notable club. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is debatable whether it even was (or is) a notable league, it received very little attention and failed rather fast. But that's a different discussion. Fram (talk) 09:41, 31 March 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 STEM fields. Tawker (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MINT disciplines[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a commonly used term. It seems to be used by Porsche, but outside of it, the only link is related to a press release that has multiple copies online. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated more links to pages including a research institute as well as a dictionary showing where it is used. Pero Despotovic 08:42, 28 March 2014 (PDT).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where the term is used is not material to its notability. There is no indication that the term "MINT disciplines" is notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and mere definitions are not appropriate here. See Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am neutral on whether it would be appropriate over on Wiktionary at wikt:mint. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it would also be acceptable, as an alternative to deletion, to redirect to STEM fields, with that article being updated to note that some writers and areas prefer the acronym "MINT" to "STEM". The English acronym MINT appears to be drawn to match its German equivalent, Mathematik, Informatik, Naturwissenschaft und Technik ([21]). TJRC (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/selective merge to STEM fields. That appears to be the concept discussed. Three sources may not be necessary, but the acronym could be mentioned in the lead section. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 31 March 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. Delete all j⚛e decker ^talk 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' 5[edit]

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

All fail WP:NALBUMS. No sources found to expand the article. Previous AFDs in 2010 all closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation and no one giving a rat's ass. Kickin' 9 was successfully deleted via a second AFD later on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete all These kinds of generic compilation albums rarely receive critical reviews or other forms of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not notable. Adabow (talk) 10:51, 5 April 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 due to blatant promotional content; G11. Cindy(talk) 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catcoin[edit]

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

Catcoin, another not so notable cryptocurrency pops up. Thus nominating for deletion. Ethically^Yours! 06:06, 28 March 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 Zaxxon#Remakes and clones. Merge--the matter of the amount of information that can be appropriately and verifiably included at the target can be a matter for normal editing discussion j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaksund[edit]

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

Ok, so I'm old. I played this game when it was new. I also played many other clone games made for the TRS-80 CoCo. They cloned every game that was popular on Atari or Apple. Tron was called ElecTRON, Pac-man was Pec-man or something like that. Joust was "Buzzard Bait" You get the idea. None of them were really notable as they were just knock-offs of popular games that were only purchased by people who used the CoCo for gaming. After nine years as a stub there are no reliable sources attached, and it seems unlikely any could be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zaxxon#Remakes and clones. I've placed the information there, but I don't have a source for it. ansh666 05:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is quite generous but I'll go with that and add an attempt at a reference. It seems the game is almost across the edge of the observable universe but even so future historians won't find this article of much help. BTW, I'm so old I didn't play this game (Colossal Cave Adventure anyone?). Thincat (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 March 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Gómez-Bassols[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable self-help author. The "awards and reception" section is nonsense-- it just lists the interviews she did of notable people, and some of the more trivial awards I've ever seen here. The other refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The radio appearances of Gómez-Bassols make her notable—she has a widely heard show on Univision. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for pop-psychologist. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You realize, of course, that "pop" means "popular", and anybody who is popular will be notable enough for Wikipedia? Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not of course at all. It's the field that is popular, not the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Binksternet's new sources, below. If she's notable enough for President Obama, she's notable enough for Wikipedia. ~~The article itself obviously needs help, but~~ I don't see a case for deletion anymore. The article has also been substantially improved over the course of this AfD discussion. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources below. Let's close this and focus on incorporating the sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources for establishing third-party recognition of Isabel Gómez-Bassols can be placed below this line. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tuning Into the Good Doctora", Hispanic Executive magazine, Spring 2014. By Michelle Markelz. Dedicated coverage and interview.
"'La doctora' is in: Grandmother of 8 dispenses advice on the radio", Sun-Sentinel of South Florida. March 25, 2012, by Johnny Diaz, staff writer. The story discusses how President Obama called in to the show to talk to Gómez-Bassols about education, immigration and health care.
National Hispana Leadership Institute honored Gómez-Bassols was made Regional Awardee in 2013.
"The good doctora – Millions nationwide are tuning in to the friendly, firm advice of Spanish-language radio host Isabel Gomez-Bassols", Boston Globe, June 17, 2003. By Johnny Diaz, Globe Staff. Dedicated coverage of Gómez-Bassols on her radio show.
"'La Doctora Isabel, el Ángel de la Radio,' Dra. Isabel Gómez-Bassols", Radio Notas, March 8, 2013, by Minerva Pedraza. Dedicated coverage of the radio career of Gómez-Bassols. In Spanish.
"MiaSci on the Radio: More Science for a Better Nation", the blog of Miami Science Museum, the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science, on February 21, 2012. "Cheryl Lani Juárez, the Museum’s Sr. Director of Professional Development, was invited to speak with Univision’s highly popular national radio host Dr. Isabel Gómez-Bassols."
This 2014 book on activism calls her "a well-respected radio psychologist with a large Hispanic following". (The chapter is on domestic violence.)

Keep has better sources here. -- GreenC 05:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new sources show a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to show subject is notable, despite the article being created by her son. We just need to make sure there is no more COI editing. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 3 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Spear[edit]

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

Non notable author of 3 non-notable books, in the adjacent nominations. Reading the refs, they are pure PR or local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about either this author or his books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some light coverage, but not enough to really show how he's notable enough for an article. There is a concern of COI here as well, as a little digging brought up some concerns that the article creator and the author are the same person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-fi Shapes[edit]

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

Not notable. No holdings at all in worldcat, and nothing even resembling a reliable reference. I can only conclude that the purpose of this and the two adjacent articles is advertising for the books. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book fails our notability guideline for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would also argue against merging it into one article, as none of the MLG books seem to pass notability guidelines. There are some COI concerns as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Geek[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only 6 library holdings in worldcat. None of the sources are reliable. (Fairfax is a local newspaper) DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book fails our notability guideline for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'd also argue against the merger, as there aren't enough sources to show notability for the series as a whole. I've warned the article creator against COI, since I have reason to believe that this is the author trying to add himself to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 28 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdy Numbers[edit]

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

Non notable, not even in worldcat. No valid references DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book fails our notability guideline for books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find enough to justify an article for all three books, let alone one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At a minimum, we have required that books be listed in Worldcat in order to pass WP:BOOKS. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 2 April 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. Tawker (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maguire (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, never elected, fails WP:POLITICIAN, lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Also fails WP:BLP as most of the text is unreferenced. As per the guideline for unelected candidates, the article was redirected to the appropriate election article, but the article creator reverted. Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know it's futile, but I think articles like these should exist. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want your "keep" to carry some weight in the final close of this debate you really should cite a reason why the guidelines and polices should be ignored and the article kept in the special case. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What substantive or encyclopedic purpose could keeping articles about unelected candidates for purely local offices — permanently, in an encyclopedia with an international scope and readership — possibly serve? Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Politics, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected former candidate. Earl Andrew, if you think articles like this about a candidate that got 2.45% of the vote should be kept, you are free to argue that at the talk page of the notability guideline. If consensus goes your way, so be it. Consider, though, the monumental volunteer effort required to maintain hundreds of thousands of such biographies of insignificant political figures. I would prefer to work on articles about truly significant and notable politicians. The kind that win elections and govern. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is premature, and therefore violates WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I foresee Maguire being the main challenger to mayor Watson in the mayoral election in October. Obviously candidates who get 2% of the vote are not notable, but I foresee him getting much more. I am well aware that I'm not making any good arguments for keeping this article. I just wanted to state that my opinion on the matter. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply' If you are correct and he wins that election, Earl Andrew, then the article can be recreated after his victory. I will gladly support keeping it at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nowhere in any Wikipedia guideline does the number of votes that a person gets or doesn't get on election day have anything to do with whether they're notable enough for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may well be true, Bearcat, but it stands to reason that a candidate who gets less than 3% of the vote is far less likely to be notable for other reasons than a candidate who gets 49% of the vote. Those who advocate liberalizing WP:POLITICIAN need to address such issues, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Granted, but the candidate who gets 49% but loses still doesn't get to claim that getting 49% of the vote is a valid notability claim in and of itself — they may be notable for other reasons or they may not, but the number of votes they got in any given race isn't what gets them there. And John Turmel stands as proof that, unlikely though it may be in most cases, it's certainly still possible for the 0-3% guy to get over the bar too. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove it. Maguire has had a notable professional and political career, worthy of its own page. Redirecting his name to the 2010 Ottawa municipal elections page ignores his other qualifications and candidacies. If fellow "aspiring politicians" like Terry Kilrea deserve a page, Maguire does too.JOttawa16 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS like I suggested below — and then once you're done, click on Terry Kilrea again and see what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLITICIAN, an election candidate does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate — if you cannot make a sufficiently strong and well-referenced claim that they were already notable enough for an article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable until they win the election. Despite the creator's claim here that "Maguire has had a notable professional and political career", the article as written doesn't even begin to suggest a notability claim for his business career — all it does is list his various unsuccessful candidacies. Creator also needs to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because some other person has an article who maybe shouldn't doesn't create new exemptions from Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules. If Maguire wins the election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time since he'll actually be taking office as a real honest-to-goodness mayor, but he doesn't qualify for an article just for running for office — and if he's actually established enough true notability as a businessperson to get past WP:GNG despite his current lack of notability as a politician, then I'd be more than willing to change my mind if the article were rewritten to place the weight where it belongs. As things stand right now, however, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a failed candidate who not only failed but was trounced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from getting 2.45% of the vote in a municipal election, winning a federal nomination but never getting to run and working on two campaigns, the only other info here is where he lives and went to school. So, there's nothing in the article that leads me to think he's notable for an encyclopedia at this time. If he gets elected mayor in 2014, than he would obviously be notable and should be added at that time. Cmr08 (talk) 06:47, 4 April 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 97[edit]

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

Yet another plainly non-notable West Midlands bus route article, citing only the bus company websites. I recently AfD'd one of them and this one is no better. I don't believe there's any chance of finding significant news coverage about this route to support a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's not a travel guide or bus timetable, is it?!

I am also nominating the following related pages because they seem to be equally insignificant West Midlands bus routes, lacking any significant reliable third party coverage:

Sionk (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Anomiebot I realise Route 97 was subject to a 2010 AfD with a delete result. As such it is a speedy deletion candidate. Presumably the discussion can continue here for routes 5 and 33? Sionk (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bus route information is potentially useful to some but I really don't understand how someone would think an unremarkable bus route merits an encyclopedia article. Bus routes regularly change frequency, alter route, etc., and focusing on current details would only be appropriate in a travel guide, which Wikipedia isn't. There's nothing here to suggest that these are in any way more significant than most. We could really use some decent guidelines for bus route notability which would need to demand more content than basic details of the route, frequency, type of buses, etc. --Michig (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - We don't need articles for individual routes .... After all we're an encyclopaedia not a bloody bus guide!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the inclusion now of the history section change anything? The route history was the real reason for the article (I should've uploaded initially, apologies) and I think this section has encyclopedic merit?? - Flagler32 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all—none meet WP:GNG as they appear, and I'm unconvinced by the uncited history section in the route 97 article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the 2010 AfD comments. I would argue this route is notable, historically because of the unusual Midland Red/Birm City Transport arrangment/duplication of services and currently because of being the sole example of night service in WM (I've added a ref to Birm Airport news article). Out of a couple of hundred services, 97 is one of only four routes of significance mentioned on the National Express West Midlands page. History section is based on my own research - Flagler32 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place to deposit personal research material. Maybe there are bus or transport websites which will be interested? Sionk (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We need guidelines to prevent the repetition. It goes bus route, afd, delete, bus route, afd, delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 31 March 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.