Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 May	20 May >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy[edit]

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

WP:NAD; we should copy this over to Wiktionary and create a disambiguation page. Laun chba ller 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not an encyclopedic issue. Let us do as proposed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be proposing turning this into a disambiguation page. This would be be achieved by ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not merely a dictionary definition, this article goes into considerable detail about the term and its history and social implications. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is in need of reorganization, better sourcing, and a clearer idea of what its subject is. It also appears to have some issues with original research. That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I'll venture to say that the subject to be treated is the word pussy, and the history of its interrelated meanings. A Google Books search does find some sources that appear to be more or less on point, but none that are, at a glance, clearly sufficient on their own; thus the weakness of my !vote. By the way, given that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article and that there are at least two specific things that readers searching for the term likely intend (cat or vulva; I'm discounting coward on no evidence stronger than my own impressions), I'm not convinced that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cnilep (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to demonstrate a valid use of the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument in my next words: Though Wikipedia states that a Wikipedia article should not be a dictionary, per WP:Dictionary, WP:Dictionary also makes clear that Wikipedia has articles that are about a term (the WP:WORDISSUBJECT aspect of WP:Dictionary that Cnilep pointed to above), and addresses the appropriate way to design such articles -- have them be about more than just a seemingly dictionary definition. My "other stuff exists" argument shows itself wonderfully when looking at the various articles Wikipedia has about profane terms and other terms. And, Cnilep, you're not sure what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case? Since the term pussy has more than one and even more than two definitions, even if one definition is more well known than the other, this article should be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article (which is what it currently is, seemingly doubling as a WP:Disambiguation page albeit). Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that Flyer22 understands WP:BROADCONCEPT differently than I do. As the page says, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing" (etc.), then a broad concept article is warranted. For example, Finance minister is a type of thing – a position in many different governments. Pussy is not a type of thing; it is a word for (at least) three different things – cats, genitals, and people the speaker means to insult. My suggestion is that there is no primary topic. In that case, the bare name should be a disambiguation page and the articles treating the various things should have parentheses or other indices in their titles. But of course, that is a different issue than whether to keep or delete this article. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've clearly interpreted WP:BROADCONCEPT differently in this case; I understand your view of WP:BROADCONCEPT on this matter, though. And this is my cue to call BD2412 to this discussion via WP:Echo, an editor who commonly contributes to editing WP:Disambiguation/WP:BROADCONCEPT and usually knows better than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But do take a look at other articles about profane terms (that I linked to in my initial post above), such as Wanker and Shit, which cover different things that just happen to be termed the same thing. This type of grouping is standard practice on Wikipedia. In the case of those two articles and many other Wikipedia articles, we haven't created a Wikipedia entry for each meaning. It's usually best to cover it all in one article. For example, sometimes the etymology of a term addresses all the different meanings, including meanings that show themselves not to be a type of the primary or previous meaning. Gay is another example. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have not long ago created the analogous article, Dick (slang), which explains the various slang meanings of the word (genitals, detectives, and people the speaker means to insult). Here, the emphasis is not on the thing itself (this is not an article about genitals, for example), but on the word as a broad slang term. I grant that WP:BROADCONCEPT is more directed towards avoiding disambiguation for terms that are variations of a single thing (for example, Southern United States, Efficiency, or Particle), but to the extent that we are addressing the somewhat amorphously related set of meanings for a term that has no primary non-slang meaning, I think an article is appropriate. bd2412 T 15:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow didn't think to mention Dick (slang), BD2412. I saw that you worked significantly on it, but I hadn't fully noticed that you had expanded it in those ways. Great example. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's encyclopedic about the word Pussy? We already have an article that explains the Vagina and its features , and that's what its slang for, and slang is a dictionary entry. Just open up a dictionary and look up any word, it shows slang. Never have I seen slang in an actual encyclopedia. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JasonHockeyGuy, per what has been stated above about Wikipedia having encyclopedic articles on such vulgar terms, I can't agree with your statement. Wikipedia clearly is not like other encyclopedias; see WP:NOTPAPER. As the Pussy article makes clear and has been stated above, the word pussy is not simply about anatomical features of the vagina. Cunt is another example of a vulgar term for the female genitals, and which has other meanings; it has a Wikipedia article, which clearly shows itself as an encyclopedic topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've been through this before. I would agree to delete if it was simply a dicdef and some etymology but it's more than that (like Fuck, Yankee, and Dude). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or major overhaul - WP:NOTDICTIONARY says "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." This page groups thinks by what they're called. Also see Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY#Major_differences for example. The nominated page gives etymologies and various meanings of the word itself, not the concept or topic. Even though it also gives more info than this, it's organized like a dictionary entry. It either needs to be changed to be "encyclopedic" (and a lot of content removed) or it needs to be deleted and recreated. Disambig and creating specific pages (e.g., Pussy (slang)) wouldn't be out of the question. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a Pussy (disambiguation), but all uses other than the slang term are comparatively minor, and most are in some way a reference to the slang term anyway. bd2412 T 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename page to Pussy (slang) and edit the crap out of it. Or just nuke it. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The complaint seems to be that the article is a "dictionary definition", but it is plainly more than that. It seems to me to be an encyclopedic article about a word, a word with three meanings and therefore an interesting history of pun, humour and often intentional confusion. Now, I don't know my way around all the intricacies of the various relevant policies, but it seems to me, whatever they say, that there should be room on Wikipedia (which is not a waste of paper) for interesting, encyclopedic articles about interesting and unusual words. There seems to be a tendency at the moment for people to wander around Wikipedia merely looking for things to delete. There used to be a time when material was deleted if it was potentially harmful or damaging, misleading or plain wrong. This article is not a dictionary definition, and so it fails, per this nomination. --Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from its offensive name, the article was really informative. My comment, copied from the previous Afd OccultZone (Talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – When do we start deleting articles that, if anything, should belong in an encyclopedia? (When I looked at the title of this nomination, I actually laughed because it's so unheard of.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep extensive discussion of the topic beyond what would be in wiktionary, and a term/cultural-factor that has been discussed extensively in RS. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has more than enough quality content to satisfy concerns about this article being a dictionary definition page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this i s a worthwhile and well enough done etymology, discussing word history of a ubiquitous term. Now, if somebody would kindly renominate camel toe, I'd be happy to come down on the other side of the issue. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 24 May 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 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Allahverdiyev[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:resume Prod removed and talk page quoting as this page being about that significant phenomenon leading author to show an issue under WP:NPOV Amortias (T)(C) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References include links to his Facebook page and LinkedIn profile. Appears to be self-promotional and written as a resume with incomplete sentences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a resumé/CV although author has introduced some inline citations in an attempt to make it seem like an article. There may be some notability in there somewhere as long as self-promotional/autobiographical references can be deleted and replaced with valid ones.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Not. Agree with Loriendrew. Looks like his resumé/CV. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:06, 21 May 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. There is a clear consenus that this content should be kept in some form, however there is no consensus whether it warrants a separate article or not. Anybody is free to open a merge discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iffley Road rugby football ground[edit]

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

Eminently non-notable football ground; article has not a single reference that might indicate notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly insane nomination of a ground that has hosted international rugby union matches, the home stadium for Oxford University's rugby union, the home of one of only four semi-professional rugby league teams in the South of England and contains a listed building. The only thing this is not is a "football stadium". Just slap "sources needed" tag on it and leave it alone.GordyB (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added two references. More will follow.GordyB (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Oxford University Rugby Football Club. Almost all the information in the article is a copy-paste/close paraphrase from the OU RFC website. The nearby stadium and running track on Iffley Road gets the vast bulk of the coverage as far as I can see. One of the existing sources in this article is a tiny mention, while another verifies something entirely different. Sionk (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current article merge is right. This ground does have an interesting history, but at the moment there's little of substance in the article, and the references are just passing mentions. Probably easier to develop a section elsewhere and then spin it off if it ever gets big enough to stand on its own. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a merge in line with User:Jonathan A Jones's comment above. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to Oxford University Rugby Football Club, unless we can justify a blanket article for the various University sports facilities in this area. There are several of these situated in the area bounded by St Hilda's College (to the north), the River Cherwell (to the west), Iffley Road and Bannister Close (to the east) and Jackdaw Lane (to the south). They host a wide variety of sports, including association football, athletics, cricket, field hockey, netball, Rugby football (both codes) and tennis (both hardcourt and lawn). The famous athletics track is at the centre of this group; the Rugby ground is the south-easternmost (Bannister Close backs onto it). There's a row of tall trees (poplar?) between the athletics track and the rugby ground; this might indicate a land ownership boundary. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Rugby Ground is not a University sports facility: it is owned and managed separately by the Rugby Club, which is an independent organisation. Bannister Close was built on Rugby Club ground if I recall correctly. I think the land you mention all originally belonged to Christ Chuch who retain control of part of it, sold some to the University and the Rugby Club, and rent some to Magdalen College School. This is the "interesting history" I hint at above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with "merge" is that the facilities aren't just used by OURFC. They are also used by a semi-professional rugby league club Oxford Rugby League. This would mean that the template for the grounds used in the Championship 1 competition would contain a link to the OURFC article - not only are they the wrong club but also the wrong sport.GordyB (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem with the template. Many of the third tier rugby stadia are not notable (or have no evidence of notability). From my understanding of your article, this football ground is owned and run by OU RFC. Sionk (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability is not the same as "not notable". Rugby is not generally a controversial topic and, on the whole, people do not try to delete articles so there hasn't been a need to justify the existence of 99.9% of rugby articles.GordyB (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page will presumably survive as a redirect, and there's nothing wrong with liking to the redeirect page per MOS:REDIR. You can even mark this page as a "redirect with possibilities" per WP:RWP in anticipation of a later spin off article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that because the subject is notable and given time I can find enough resources. What I don't need is a deletion.GordyB (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are now references, there are no real issues of copy-violation just a smokescreen. Yes, some info does come from the OURFC website but one or two sentences doesn't constitute copy-vio. See ( [1] ).GordyB (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable and just needs added sources and a rewrite. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Springboks have played there 5 times, All Blacks 6 times and Wallabies 8 times. If you check the wiki pages for those sides UK tours then you can see the game and result - don't have time at the moment to link them all Grousehouse (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of this as a location for playing rugby is not in question. Apparently brought to AfD under the misapprehension that this is a football ground. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:36, 24 May 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. In a way it seems a shame since a lot of work was clearly put into the article, but as stated below Wikipedia is not the medium for work with this low level of coverage. Incidentally, as a one-time research physicist I don't think we need to worry about theories going unknown simply because no-one can find them on Wikipedia. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Preon Model[edit]

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

Lack of notability The subject of this article does not "exist" in the physics litterature. It has only been published by one person 17 years ago in a single paper. That paper appears in a journal which may or may not have used peer review at the time. The journal is also clearly outside the mainstream journals for publishing groundbreaking new theoretical works in physics (as this article claims to be). The paper has not been cited anywhere. It has not been the subject of any courses or textbooks. No additional published works has since appeared. Bj norge (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A single primary source with zero citations, appears to be all that has ever been written about the subject in the physics literature. Obviously, fails general notability criteria.T R 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this article fully meets the general notability guideline, since the basis for this article is a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Physics Essays. I am quite certain that Physics Essays used peer review for its entire existence, and I can clearly vouch for the fact that peer review was indeed obtained for the publication that is the basis for the article. The Physics Essays publication clearly addresses the topic of the article directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the vast majority of the article's content, although the article does include discussion of additional experimental data that has been obtained after the time of publication. The journal Physics Essays appears on many library shelves within Physics Departments and it is easy to verify that the article exists by going to such a library. I am the page author, and please note that I went through the process of having a separate editor look at this before posting it. Please see the article's talk page for more discussion. I would welcome any comments on how to improve the article, but I do not wish to have it deleted entirely. Delbert7 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us stipulate that a single 17 year old original article presenting this theory exists, but that this is all that has happened with this subject. Respectfully, this is as non-notable as any published research subject can be.Bj norge (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review process involves a substantial amount of activity that is not present in non-peer-reviewed published research avenues, of which there are many (published lab notes, conference procedings, letters to the editor, and so on). So I believe the above comment is in error. I also don't see the relevance of how old a fact is, as long as it is a fact. But in the end, it is my belief that the real reason this article has been nominated for deletion has to do with its content, not its notability. If my belief is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, as I think this is relevant to the deletion discussion. Delbert7 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief is incorrect. Moreover, please actually read the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. It quite clearly states that there must be multiple secondary sources. At this point we have one primary source, which clearly is not enough to establish notability. Also please not that wikipedia is a not a soapbox to promote your own ideas from.T R 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Delbert's comments above: I nominated it because of clear lack of notability. Do I believe that lack of notability of a scientific paper sometimes may be due to the contents of that paper? Yes absolutely. Do I believe that a great scientific paper sometimes can go unnoticed for many years? Yes absolutely. Do I believe that Wikipedia should somehow try to compensate for this. No, absolutely not. Bj norge (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both above commenters for correcting my mistaken belief concerning content. However, I wish to respectfully reply on the primary notability matter by noting that I had indeed read the policy before posting any responses here. The policy says Sources "should" be secondary sources, not "must". Digging further by following the link found within the policy, we find: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So I believe the article still falls within the notability criterion as so described. Delbert7 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although primary sources can sometimes be used as references they cannot be used to establish notability. Notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. Primary sources cannot be independent. Please stop being dense.T R 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is my first Wikipedia article and I am not trying to be "dense". Wikipedia has an enormous amount of articles on wide and varied subjects, and I suspect the vast majority are not backed by a peer-reviewed scientific publication as the primary source. Perhaps for scientific articles primary source means a scientific publication and secondary means citations or further references in such, but in the general case it must be something else. I read the GNG with the larger scope in mind, and hence read things the way I did. Delbert7 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original source has collected zero citations in its many years of existence, according to Google scholar. That means that it has had no impact on science and (because it lacks adequate secondary sourcing) does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If lack of citations is the sole criterion, the problem becomes circular for getting new ideas into discussion. Ideas outside of the mainstream generally get ignored. If the lack of citations is used to remove works from other venues where the new ideas might be seen, it will then preclude future citations since no one will see it, so it will never qualify. The GNG has citations as one criteria, but the article meets many of the other GNG criteria for notability, as I understand it. Delbert7 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyklopedia. Wikipedia (by definition) only contains ideas that have already been noted, used, developed etc. elsewhere. It neither values nor devalues new ideas, but it does not provide a venue to present or promote them. Ideas that are new in a temporal sense, or in a sense that they have not been as of yet been noted by a larger audience, must first become notable by other means than by promoting it in Wikipedia. Verifiable notability must necessarily mean that someone else has written about the subject, referenced it, written a book about, made a new story, made a film or television program. The sole existence of a subject cannot by itself make it notable. If it did we would not need a notability criteria, and Wikipedia would be transformed into an extra copy of reality. The notability criteria does not try to evaluate a subject in itself, but only tries to capture the degree to which ideas and other things already have been noted / appreciated /written about etc. Great ideas (as well as bad ones) may unfortunately sometimes be completely ignored by the "world" but Wikipedia is not here to correct that.Bj norge (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also, Wikipedia policy says it doesn't have to be accurate, it has to be sourced, and it is. I Googled it, and it gets 33,000 hits. Somebody will come looking for it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is 33,000 pages containing ABC, Prion and Model. Most of those have nothing to do with this. Restricting to "ABC Preon Model" online produces about 8,000 hits. Most of those are wikipedia mirrors. The rest is mostly, our dear friend Larson promoting his work on the internet and metahits from various abstract indexing surfaces. So, no it does not meet the GNG.T R 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Google hits on "ABC Preon Model" were solicited by others. Professor Umberto Bartocci had once asked me to write a contribution to his online journal Episteme. (www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/larson2.htm). In that contribution you will see a citation to the primary source for the ABC Preon Model, although I was the one who cited it. There is an online posting (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76937) by ohwilleke who cites the primary source, and he found that on his own. On the WorldWide NPA site (http://www.worldnpa.org/php/DatabaseMenu.php?tab=2&subtab=2&turn_page=4&turn_page=5) you can find a reference to a talk I gave on this subject to an NPA conference, and while I certainly presented the talk, the NPA is a separate organization. None of the aforementioned sources were peer-reviewed, so I am not sure how they count toward secondary sourcing in this case. But I felt these facts should be added to the discussion. Note that the GNG, when following this link states that "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources". Delbert7 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I approved this submission, but looking back, it was a mistake to approve this, as this does not meet notability guidelines by a mile. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 22 May 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes mellitus type 2 among Hispanic and Latino Americans[edit]

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

Reads like a personal essay concerning the subject material. There does appear to be a lot of citations and perhaps some usable material in the article, but I question the article's design and construction. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Design and construction seems off. Ethnic predisposition for a particular diseases makes extremely awkward article subjects. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Assuming you end up deleting this, there is a redirect Aging Hispanic/Latinas with Type II Diabetes Mellitus associated with it. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and also delete Aging Hispanic/Latinas with Type II Diabetes Mellitus) — I agree with nominator and Maile. Subjective and selective. Belongs in the Journal of American Medicine, not here. Quis separabit? 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Jersey92 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The majority of this article is too essay like and even if it was rewritten I don't think there is enough on this topic to warrant its own article. I think it would be better if some relevant information was be merged into the Diabetes article or it could be used along with information on other populations to create an Epidemiolgy of Diabetes mellitus article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 22 May 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Middle School[edit]

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

It seems strange to have a dab listing only topics that not only don't have articles, but, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, likely never will. Wouldn't it be more helpful to simply let search results take care of this? BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 entries which meet MOS:DABMENTION. Potentially WP:USEFUL - certainly nothing to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I notice there are many disambiguation pages like this (see the See also section). WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES only suggests an outcome for articles, not disambiguation pages, and while MOS:DABMENTION does seem to allow for this I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of having disambiguation pages for everything that doesn't warrant an article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even two entries with full articles, rather than just mentions, generally don't merit dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That isn't what the guidelines say, see WP:2DABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but neither one is the primary topic, or if both topics are obscure, then it is appropriate to have a disambiguation page at the base name. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia:

John Quested may refer to: *John Quested (aviator) (1893–1948), English World War I flying ace *John Quested (producer) (born 1935), film producer and owner and chairman of Goldcrest Films

If people disagree with the guidelines, by all means, that should be discussed at an appropriate venue - not here. So far the comments don't go beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right; I've amended my rationale. Also, the example you give has two full-fledged articles. Two entries that are likely never to have articles is too big a reach. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:2DABS extract given above specifically mentions using a dab for two items which are both obscure and to which a given title might refer. This clearly meets that description. Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two obscure entries which meet DABMENTION. It would be a bad idea to redirect to one target, because that implies adding hatnotes for potentially every other school in the area/district. Also a DAB seems easier to navigate than a page of search results, assuming its up-to-date. Siuenti (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. After examining Category:Educational institution disambiguation pages, it looks like they got us surrounded. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there was only one "Auburn Middle School", it would be standard policy to redirect it to the appropriate school district. There are (at least) two: why should either of them have less navigation just because there's a second one? The dab page just serves the function of that redirect, for each of them. Plus a couple of harmless "See also"s. PamD 12:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought the policy on schools was to keep them? We keep malls, why not schools? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High schools yes. Below that, they generally get redirected to their school districts unless they have some unusual distinction. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a disambiguation page, not an article about a school. Siuenti (talk) 20:18, 22 May 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 Polyglotism. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Doner[edit]

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

This person does not need a Wikipedia page. This other wikipedia member also agrees - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timothy_Doner. Paperpaste (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but for people like me who have heard for the first time that a Wolof language exists thanks to his page, he is a role model. Certainly this is just a side commentary. I may return with something more blue-linked later. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ Merge into Polyglotism. There are many independent secondary sources I can find for this person [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] but Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I'm uncomfortable about having sensationalist articles about someone who's only known for having a rare skill. I can't find anything in the policies, guidelines or articles about this, so I'm going to ask on the Village Pump. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to the Village Pump post. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can think of other possible arguments not to keep this article, notably WP:BLP1E, but "sensationalist" and "tabloid" just don't apply to a subject with solid sourcing in The New York Times [7], The Washington Post[8], BBC News[9], and The Economist[10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BLP1E doesn't really apply because there's no event here. But it addresses the same sort of issue, that the usual sources aren't always as strict in their inclusion criteria as we are, so we need to consider carefully whether individual articles in secondary sources actually constitute notability. WP:GNG says:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

It also says:

Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

I would argue that all of the sources mentioned above are minor news stories and don't lend enough significance to the subject matter to assert notability. If this guy goes on to do something really significant using his skill then fair enough, but he shouldn't be considered notable simply for having a skill. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are not "minor news stories", they are substantial features in some of the world's leading news sources. There is no basis for our distinguishing between "having" and "doing"; the sources (especially gold standard sources like these) decide what's of interest, not us. Again, there are other possible reasons to delete this, but not a failure of coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna suggest a merge into polyglotism. Certainly this is not a public figure that needs to be identified by the general public, but he is a notable example of the concept of hyperpolyglotism. I think that a paragraph at that article might be the best way to handle such a well-sourced example of this phenomenon. Van Isaac_WS^cont 23:02, 20 May 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 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Metro Airlines[edit]

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

Article is about two airlines, one that existed from 1939 to 1975 and the other was a failed start up from 2002 to 2009 that apparently never operated flights. Clearly, the failed start up is non notable. I am not finding any coverage that indicates that the earlier airline was notable. Delete for failure to satisfy WP:NCORP. A similar article was deleted at AfD in 2008. Safiel (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I was setting this AfD up, another user deleted the information about the failed start up, which is just fine. So this AfD is just on the older airline now. Safiel (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable and no sources to support the content. Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We almost always find scheduled, operating commercial airlines that have actually flown to be notable, and I would certainly think this would be true of an airline that lasted for decades and flew intercontinental routes as this one supposedly did. But the problem is, there seems to be no evidence to substantiate the content of the article. Nothing is provided, and I couldn't find anything; the sources in the edit history are vague at best. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is not a single hit for 'Canadian Metro Airlines' on google books. An airline operating 1939-1975 should have a few hits there. --Soman (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 21 May 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. Consensus is clear enough, particularly after signficant improvements were apparently made to the article. Discussion about the proper specifics (e.g., inclusion of redlinks) are best left to the editorial process, not AfD. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of women art historians[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject of women-who-are-art-historians does not get significant coverage that I'm finding, and doesn't have a corresponding topic article. We do not have a general list of art historians nor a list of men art historians, and this does not appear to be a field where gender of the academic is a significant indicator of the type of work they do (as opposed to, say, a theoretical List of art historians specializing in the Renaissance era.) The original title given this article, List of art historians who happen to be women, suggests that even the creator thinks that gender is not directly related to the nature of the career. As such, this seems unencylopedic. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Note: original nominator vote changed to Weak Keep; see below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting and informative list which does not duplicate information found elsewhere. It would be helpful if more information were eventually provided on each individual listed. --Eahonig (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is *exactly* because the subject does not get coverage that it is important! I think there should be a list of all art historians, and I have one in my sandbox, but as I have pointed out to you before, the reason why this list is important is because: A. Art history is an incredibly small and under appreciated discipline, the standard list has only 2475 on it, and B. There are only 200 women on that list! Most art historians, let alone the general public, are not even aware of this. This project is part of an effort to bring attention to the problem!
Whether or not their work addresses gender in an explicit way is irrelevant, their gender is only important in so far as they appear to be grossly under represented. That is why the original title was "Art historians who happen to be women." Obviously I think that gender is related to the career trajectory and pay scales of art historians who happen to be women, but I do not think that whether or not they deal with gender as a subject in their own work, is at all relevant to the list.
Also, and please do not take this personally, but as you are not an art historian, I am not sure you are properly qualified to be judging what the proper subject for art historians is. Because they don't necessarily work on gender they should not be listed? That makes no sense to me.
If football teams are encyclopedic, then art history departments are as well. If we can make lists of women artists, women astronauts, and women scientists, then we can make lists of women art historians. Or, more properly, as far as I am concerned: Lists of art historians who happen to be women! (Vhfs (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- I understand that you think that because there is not coverage elsewhere, it is important that it gets covered here. However, that flies against the most basic statement of what qualifies for an article on Wikipedia, our General Notability Guideline, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I think it's excellent that you want to delve into the topic, and there are plenty of places on and off the Internet where it would be appropriate to do so. I am in no way judging what the proper subject for art historians is, I am using my long experience as a Wikipedia editor to make a judgment as to what fits our guidelines of inclusion. I can find significant outside coverage on women astronauts and women scientists, so that doesn't have the notability problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am using my long term experience as an art historian to try to impress upon you that this list is a worthy and important topic, exactly because it is exceptional. The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world. And there are plenty of excellent sources, the online dictionary of art historians, to name just one. It is so absurd to me that I would have to fight to keep this entry. Wikipedia has a real problem. You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it. I might just do it anyway because this is total fucking bullshit. (Vhfs (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    - "so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else" - which is precisely and specifically one of the things that Wikipedia is not, a publisher of original research. And there are plenty of places in this world that are designed for publishing original research. I'm not sure why it upsets you so that someone is pointing out that this is not one of those places. It's like walking into a Pizza Hut and getting upset that they won't sell you a hamburger when there are three burger joints on the block. Not only that, there are tools for building your own burger shop; you seem to have a lot of enthusiasm for a far deeper chronicling of academia then fits into Wikipedia guidelines, and that might make for a great wiki all its own - and the same software that Wikipedia runs on is available for free for you to use, and there are even sites that already have that or similar software installed and will allow you to set up a wiki where you and you alone set up the guidelines for inclusion. Or you might write an article on the topic - I don't know if art history journals would also be interested in such an aspect on the history of art history instead of just the history of art, but I would suspect that between those journals, journals of feminist studies, and even popular magazines such as Ms., there'd be a place for a well-written article on the historical and changing place of women in the field. And as a bonus, the publication of such an article in a reliable source would make both good reference for Wikipedia and support the argument that Wikipedia should cover it, because it's being covered elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this version. A version that is properly cited and linked to articles should be kept. This is just an unreferenced list of names. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need shown for this list. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. As has been remarked, our policy is to avoid indiscriminate lists. RomanSpa (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep, following excellent work by Drmies and Jooojay. RomanSpa (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as failing all relevant guidelines and being essentially unworkable into something that does not. While there are a number of ways to arrive at a valid list of people, this doesn't meet any of them. There is no List of art historians (or even List of lists of art historians) within which this could function as an index of articles complementary to Category:Art historians, and so it doesn't fall within WP:NOTDUP. Note also that the existing category structure is subdivided by field of study and by nationality, not by gender, and so there's no help there. Without a master list this can't be justified as a WP:SPLIT either, which in any event we'd expect some justification for splitting out women as a subgroup for this particular occupation, as doing so may make sense for some but not other occupations. If the list's defender's comments are any indication, however, women art historians is not a recognized or discussed grouping in secondary sources, which means WP:LISTN is not met...which also means there is not any basis for listing nonnotable names. And as this is barely even a list of articles, given how few bluelinks there are (and even some of those point to disambiguation pages), it does not meet WP:LISTPURP. Reconfiguring it into a valid master list of art historians would basically require a completely fresh start, which would be easier to do as a data dump from our category structure than by trying to work with this, so per WP:TNT, WP:ATD is not practical.
Bottom line, we don't do original research here, and even when doing something as factually mundane as indexing Wikipedia articles by verifiable facts, we try to follow established practices that make sense for the subject matter rather than inventing our own. Show that there are secondary sources expressly discussing the role and/or experience of women in art history (as there undoubtedly are for women artists) and the analysis would change. A better use of editor time might be to research individual women art historians to write and expand our biographical articles on them, and if editors want to keep a working list of missing articles for their own benefit they can do so in their userspace. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep as improvements have rendered most of my arguments moot, particularly WP:TNT. I still think this was the wrong way to go about it, and it would have been more productive to start from scratch rather than completely reworking the preexisting page (really the same thing in the end perhaps), but whatever. Once you're there, how you got there matters less. We still should also have a master list(s) of all WP articles on art historians subdivided by nationality and by specialization, complementary to the category system. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams, that include notable and non-notable teams and players, statistics, and not have similar pages for departments and universities? I cannot help the fact that this idea is so new and fresh, nobody gets it, not even people in my own discipline. It is because my discipline is so lame and underdeveloped that it has not even bothered with this question. And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity. You know, I don't think there is even one book on women art historians. Which is super weird when you think about it because when artists depict personifications of the arts, it is rarely a male. Women have always had a central, but unacknowledged role in the protection and advancement of the arts. And yet, like most women's work, it is regularly overlooked, ignored, dismissed, or belittled. Much like this list is being dismissed and belittled. You have a list of women writers, and artists, how come you cannot have a list of women art historians? Explain that. This is no different. I don't want a separate Wikipedia for it because this list belongs here. I am happy to fix the notes, and I want to make it a searchable spreadsheet.
I can't believe you guys. You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Wikipedia is a collective project, if you want to keep helping Wikipedia to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways, you have to let new strong voices with different perspectives in. Voices that happen to be female.
Otherwise, good luck with all the football team pages. Great work. Important work. Clearly information that is unavailable elsewhere. Really. Football. That is what I think of when I think about true civilization, and the best parts of humanity. Football will take us into the future and affirm our collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait. (Vhfs (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
p.s. I have a list of art historians in my sandbox but it also needs to be footnotes, and I cannot do everything at once. As much as I would like to be able to. (Vhfs (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- As has already been expressed to you above in multiple ways, we only do information that is available elsewhere. If your own field is not doing this, then we certainly will not. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree with the sentiment voiced by Vhfs. That is why I don't edit sports-related articles, because I'm not interested in that stuff and find it completely trivial. However, never mind how unfortunate I think this is, from an encyclopedic point of view, even minor sports figures are often much more notable than even many important academics. Simply because many more people are interested in, say, field hockey than Etruskan architecture. So field hockey players get coverage in reliable sources and valuable academics don't. Same goes for almost anybody having played a minor role in some obscure soap. Hence, these people are notable whereas many academics miss the bar. Like it or not, it's a fact of life. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why you think there's an anti-female agenda here, but the chip on your shoulder is probably not the best way to convince people that the article should stay. Just because an editor thinks the article is not enyclopedic does not necessarily make them a misogynist. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that Vhfs, like many people, has come to Wikipedia in perfectly good faith, in the sincere belief that Wikipedia is a good place to use for the purpose of promoting a cause which she believes deserves more attention. Like many people (including myself when I first started editing Wikipedia) she has evidently seen the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit as an ideal medium for publishing original research that has not received coverage elsewhere. All that is fully understandable. What is less understandable is that she persists in that view after repeatedly having it explained, both on this page and elsewhere, that Wikipedia policies and guidelines say otherwise. Both she and the one other single-purpose account that has argued for keeping, in attempting to argue to keep the article, have in fact made an astonishingly strong case for deletion.

Leaving aside such irrelevances as "You better address it or I am going to write to Ms Magazine about it", "Tell me why you can make seasonal pages for football teams", "Football will take us into the future and affirm our collective humanity every step of the way. I can't wait" (See WP:OTHERSTUFF), the reasons given for keeping are essentially the following two points:

"Does not duplicate information found elsewhere", "The subject is covered in no other venue, not even by the College Art Association, so Wikipedia is now home to new scholarship in the field, unavailable anywhere else, in the world", and other forms of words saying that we should keep it because there is no substantial coverage in existing sources, and because it is original research that Wikipedia can publish. Unfortunately, Vhfs is showing a remarkable failure to hear what has repeatedly been said to her, both on this page and elsewhere: namely that under Wikipedia policy those are in fact good reasons for not keeping the article: see WP:NOTE and WP:NOR.
"And that is why we need this list! TO help it grow and change, to help it develop some badly needed self-reflexivity." In other words, the purpose of the page is to serve a campaign to promote and publicise a cause which Vhfs believes is deserving of more attention. However, that again is, under Wikipedia policy, a reason for not keeping the article: see WP:NOTADVOCATE.

If Vhfs wants "Wikipedia to expand and grow in new, unpredictable ways" then she is perfectly free to suggest changing Wikipedia's polices to allow that to happen, but this deletion discussion will be assessed by the closing administrator on the basis of currently existing policies and guidelines. Putting forward reasons which are directly contrary to those current policies and guidelines, because she doesn't like them, is unlikely to result in a "keep" decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list does, or could reasonably be expanded to, fulfil WP:LISTPURP's criteria of Information, Navigation, and Development. Information, because if expanded to be searchable by date and location, it would inform readers about the historical development and geographical dispersal of women working in art history; in particular, it would provide this information which categorization alone would not de. Navigation, because it is a natural place for those looking for articles on female art historians and feminist art history to find relevant articles. And Development, because this list provides a good way of keeping track of whether Wikipedia is doing a good job of covering women in art history. Contrary to the nominators claim that female art historians is not a topic with significant coverage, the gender of art historians is in fact a widely discussed topic in feminist art history; a simple Google search, for instance, turned up this collection of relevant resources: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920105/obo-9780199920105-0034.xml . The fact that there are no List of art historians or List of male art historians articles isn't relevant; the fact that no-one has taken the effort to make those lists doesn't mean that this list doesn't fulfil Wikipedia's criteria on its own merits. VoluntarySlave (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Question for User:VoluntarySlave: This is certainly the best case made for keeping the article (and I think the division that some are trying to paint as male-versus-female commentors on this is more a matter of experienced-wiki-editors-versus-relative-or-total-newcomers), and I will have to look at the sources more carefully (there's a thick layer of academic-speak that I have to weed through to understand to what degree it's talking about women in art, to what degree it is talking about women in art history, and to what degree it is talking about feminism in art history; I'm not one of those folks for whom that is a natural tongue). However, I'm still trying to picture what this article would look like in its ideal state. Does it include all women art historians, which apparently includes thousands registered in the US alone (and certainly the list, under this title at least, should not be limited to the US), which runs into real problems of WP:LENGTH, as well as concerns about it being more a directory than something encyclopedic? Or is it limited to "notable" women art historians, which would seem to run against the goal of at least some involved here, because the women in the field have failed to receive due note? Or is there some third vision that I'm missing? I'd be interested in hearing your perception of it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list needs some editorial work, but it provides a badly needed representation of women in a field (my field) where they are often marginalized despite being the dominant gender. Although most art history departments are largely populated by women, they are often chaired or directed by men. If there is not a list of women art historians published elsewhere, let's take a moment to reflect upon why that is the case, and ask ourselves if this gender problem has anything to do with it... If we publish a list of women art historians elsewhere, will it make this list 'encyclopedic'? Any less encyclopedic than, as someone pointed out, a list of football players? Aren't faculty department webpages enough? It appears that the (male) editors here are outwardly stifling the voices of women contributors, a problem well-documented in the Wikipedia community. A list of professional art historians is not "original research" and has an equal significance as "Women Artists." And to get to the point before the Wiki-bros do (btw --- I am a man myself) let's just acknowledge, for the record, that women artists don't always make art about being a women, and thus gender isn't "directly related to the nature of their career." Should we delete that thread too? Please hold back the snarky, privileged tone while we have this discussion. --Studiojunk (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Studiojunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Like other people arguing for "keep", you say we should keep the article to promote further public exposure of people who you think at present does not have enough coverage. However, as has been explained above under Wikipedia policy (1) use of Wikipedia to promote is unacceptable, and (2) lack of substantial coverage in existing reliable sources is a reason for deletion, so like most of the arguments advanced on this page for "keep", your arguments are actually reasons for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (apologies up front-this was not typed on my computer. Time felt of the essence. Forgive my quickness on a small screen. TY.) The basis given for this entire debate feels very much like the "Some Men/Not All Men" / men deserve equal rights arguments personified. To suggest that a page such as this should necessitate a list of all art historians as well as male art historians is reductive. Like it or not ( I don't; yet as an educator and academic scholar, very much not an art historian, I would be very remiss to ignore this) our gender still has significant implications for what we are permitted to do, what we are actually able to do, and what may be seen as accomplished once we're finished. This field-like nearly every professional field within the the academies (or simply, nearly every professional field)-is male dominated, and as such, the work that is done, that is granted approval to progress, and that is seen by wider audiences, does so only with male approval. In no way am I suggesting that every male in this field wields tyrannical Man control (don't put further "some men" arguments into this); as fields have moved forward throughout the years, many have progressed and have allowed influences to diffuse. And still many have not. That's the issue here: And still many have not.
In a world where positive influence and inspiration for women and young girls isn't easily found-list such as these say, "scholarship like this is for you too." When we highlight even the smallest population of women, though it may really upset the "Some Men" out there who don't see a list of the corresponding "All the Mens" list, and feels as though their equal rights have been squashed, we're still saying and showing that it matters to have women, gender and all, in these fields. And in doing so, no rights have been taken from any man, anywhere. Essentially every list such as this, prior to when, would have been all men...so, those list are there, throughout history.
Ideally, women and men would support this-that's where gender is truly negated here: we have to come together in our understandings that gender still matters. Claiming it doesn't is like insisting race is a non-issue now (I'm throwing all the shade possible now as I type this...). This is an interesting/pop culture way to see this in action: Check out NASAs Wikis-see the number of female astronauts-note who they are. Then look for the lists of minority astronauts...compare that to the list of White Male astronauts... yeah-NASA isn't daffy enough to make that last one so easy to find-because it's basically a math problem-minus out all the other individuals on the lists and you have your new list of WMs. Sometimes it simply isn't about all the men, or even some of the men; sometimes, it's about the women (ALL of them) that have been systematically ignored for thousands of years. TY rad supporters of equality for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah DeLe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Sarah DeLe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You really do your case no good at all by misrepresenting the case for deletion as being about men: the case for deletion is that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Leaving that aside, your argument is substantially about using Wikipedia to promote further exposure of women art historians to public view, because you see them as not getting coverage so far. However, as already explained above, under Wikipedia policy those are two reasons for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking an unnecessarily aggressive tone in your responses -- especially the bold striking, which comes off as incredibly dismissive and redundant. Can you clarify how a list of women art historians is "promotional" and why it matters that such a list does not already exist? Because Wikipedia? Is there some master list of "fictional political parties" out there, from a reputable source, or should we take that one down as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_political_parties --Studiojunk (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks ripe for AfD to me, and you're very welcome to help the encyclopedia out by nominating it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian women instructive as to how this debate is likely to be assessed. A solution proposed there might well be appropriate here, that of converting this list to a category. Rather than maintain a list of women art historians, you can add [[Category:Women Art Historians]] to articles for each member of the category, and a category page will be automatically generated for it. This will cut down the number of people on the list, as many of them are likely to be not notable by wikipedia standards, but it also has a somewhat lower bar for keeping compared to a list or article and it is much easier to maintain than a list. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Voluntary Slave. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to point out that JamesBWatson deleted another article I worked on for over *two months* with my students, on university art museums and galleries, in what I would call a vindictive manner, and I was forced to petition to have it undeleted (and the process can take over two months if you are wondering), so I would have to say that it is very likely that his opinion on this matter is colored by our previous disagreements. If you are curious at all you can see for yourself what happened on my Sandbox talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vhfs/sandbox. I am still waiting to have the article undeleted (it was so great!) Read it for yourself and decide. Otherwise, there are not "1000s" of women art historians in the US, the fact of the matter is that we know that there are 3500 registered art historians all together, and and then many more that are unregistered. So let's say, on the outside there are 3000 women art historians in the US (an educated guess). We still have no way of knowing how many there are around the world, maybe 7000 all told, but if entered into a searchable spreadsheet, by nationality, location, school, and specialization, I think it would be quite manageable. Here is the list I made with my students, I am thinking something like this, but bigger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State
I am with VoluntarySlave!!! (Vhfs (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That JamesBWatson was involved in another deletion is not surprising; he is an active Wikipedia editor and an administrator, so he gets involved in a lot. My statement of thousands come from their being 3500 registered and the assertion of another art historian in this thread that females now predominate the field (albeit not in leadership positions), which suggest to me at least a couple thousand - i.e., thousands. And even if your estimate of current worldwide women art historians is accurate at 7000, remember that your plans seem not to include just current art historians, but historical art historians; while they may not have been as plentiful in the past, that would still seem to add a considerable fraction on top of that. I certainly haven't looked at every list on Wikipedia, but within the ones I have looked at, I cannot recall one being a tenth as long as what you seem to be aiming for, and it would seem to run into problems with our WP:LENGTH guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are notable lists and categories along similar lines; for instance, Category:Women mathematicians has a clear case for notability (it includes two topic-specific associations and a separate title article with many relevant sources). But in this case, I don't see reliable sourcing elsewhere for treating women art historians, specifically, as a noteworthy class of people. (I can find sourcing for feminist art history and historians, but that appears to be a different topic.) Certainly, if this is kept, it should be pared back to only those people who have their own Wikipedia articles, per standard Wikipedia rules for lists of people. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The list has been significantly improved since my earlier !vote: the density of names with linked articles is now much higher (although still not yet close to one; it looks like that change is still in progress) and there is some referenced introductory text on the general subject. I'm still not entirely convinced that this topic meets WP:GNG but it is a lot better and I want to hold off on deciding again until this set of changes is complete. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~-- In fact Nat Gertler, it *is* rather surprising that JamesBWatson decided to weigh in on this question. There are 21,407,333 Wikipedians, and over 4,519,307 articles. What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice, on two very different kinds of articles, whose only similarity is that *I* happen to be involved in them? Fairly low I think, unless he is, you know, keeping tabs on my activities. That would be weird and perverse. Don't you think? I have only worked on three pages. Well five if you count the Franchise universitaire page on the French Wikipedia, and then that "Wikipedia's dude problem" page (surprisingly that didn't go anywhere...) Anyhow, on another subject entirely, I found this amazing list! Which goes up to 5000, and it does not seem too unwieldy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
The bottom line is that we really have no idea how many women art historians there are, but I will gladly buy Nat Gertler a t-shirt that says "I tried to delete the first list of women art historians in the world and I failed" if we get past 4000. I am really not kidding.
(Vhfs (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You have now posted two bolded Keep recommendations. Please strike one of them out, per WP:AFD: "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line."
There may be 21 million Wikipedians; there are not 300 who have made as many edits to this project as JamesBWatson, so one would expect to see him in far more places than the average.
The similarity between two list articles on the arts is not only that you were involved with them; they are both list articles on the arts.
"Keeping tabs on your activities", as in, say, having your talk page on his watch list, would be neither weird nor perverse. He was communicating with you on that page, so it would make sense for him to have it on his watch list, and he would thus be notified when things like the listing of the article for this deletion discussion appeared on that page. (Note: I am not saying that he is doing this; I neither have nor want access to his watch list.)
It is often good for the encyclopedia for an experienced editor to keep an eye on an editor who is either having problems or causing trouble. These are not your intimate secrets here, these are your public edits on a project that is collaborative in nature.
The list you indicate is not in "article space", so it is not subject to the same guidelines that articles are. As to whether it is unwieldy, I am accessing this from a high-speed Internet connection on a computer that is only a few years old. Not everyone is so privileged.
You may keep your bribes to yourself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vhfs, your comments about the numbers of articles and the number of Wikipedians, followed by "What are the chances the same editor would swoop in twice", appear to be based on an assumption that people select what they do on Wikipedia at random. That is far from being so. It is common for editors to follow up on things they have already done, in various ways, so that an editor is quite likely to check on things related to what he or she has recently had involvement with. Since you are concerned about how I came to this discussion, I will tell you. My first awareness of your existence came as a result of your posting a request for help at User talk:Vhfs/sandbox. One of the things that I regularly do on Wikipedia is check the list of Wikipedians who have pending requests for help, so I saw your request, and posted a reply to it. Subsequently, you posted two more request for help on the same page, and I saw one of those two, and responded to it. Having twice offered help to the same editor, I later checked back, to see how that editor was getting on, and saw that you had posted a message addressed to me on the same page, in which you asked me to give further information which I answered. Seeing an editor who had not only several times asked for help, but had also specifically asked me for information, perhaps it would not be unreasonable if I decided at this point to check up again, to see if you needed more help. You posted another request for help to the same page, which I saw, and to which I responded. However, that was not all. One of the administrative tasks that I sometimes do is assessing requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and one of the requests that came up there was a request from you concerning a page that I had deleted. I posted a message there, suggesting that the content of the article could be made available to you, perhaps by email, or perhaps by undeletion, leaving the decision to an independent administrator to make. By this time, I had had a significant amount of contact with you, all of which had been initiated by requests of one sort or another from you. What is more, one of those requests, specifically addressed to me, was one which I would never have seen had I not chosen to come back and check how you were getting on. It does not seem to me, under those circumstances, in any way sinister or malicious that I was by then taking enough notice of what you were doing that I saw this deletion discussion.

I offer you a word of advice for taking part in discussions on Wikipedia. Avoid making accusations of bad faith against other editors, even if you believe the accusations are justified, because doing so gives a negative impression of you to other editors. At best, someone reading your comments will think you may have justification, but that making the accusation does not further your case about whether the article should be deleted, which will be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion. At worst, someone reading your comments will see them as completely unreasonable, which will tend to discourage them from taking notice of your views. My experience over the years is that editors who assume good faith, even when they may have doubts, usually have a far more successful time here than those who are frequently ready to assume bad faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think that maybe you guys are trying to sandbag this project with endless blahblah about "the rules" and authoritarian male bullshit? I officially rescind my offer to buy you a t-shirt Nat Gertler since you imagine, so easily, that it could be construed as a bribe. But I am greatly relieved to learn that the article will "be assessed on the merits of the arguments advanced, not on the perceived motives of those taking part in the discussion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Vhfs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Vhfs (UTC).[reply]

You stated earlier "You seem to think you get to make all the decisions. Wikipedia is a collective project[...]". Yes, Wikipedia is a collective project. That includes the many, many thousands of people, both female and male, who have worked (and continue to work) to formulate and refine the various policies, guidelines, and procedures that, while imperfect, have shaped Wikipedia into this great-if-imperfect resource that it is. So when you call on us to ignore what they have done, you are not asking us to act as if it's a collective project. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nat Gertler Please don't take this personally but I am just going to ignore you from now on if you don't mind. But check this out! It looks really great! http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/05/21/writing-her-in-wikipedia-as-feminist-activism/ (Vhfs (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

*Delete since almost none of these actually have articles about them, and there really isn't any way to verify any of the information presented in the article due to it's staggering lack of sources. G S Palmer (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it may have already been pointed out to you, Vhfs, but Wikipedia is not the place for Righting Great Wrongs. G S Palmer (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least 200 of them do (talk), I just have not got around to adding them yet. But not everyone listed in Wikipedia has articles about them, do they? Such as the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits Anyway, all the push back I am getting for this project, actually has nothing to do with this list, which would be, under normal circumstance, completely unremarkable. It has only attracted some weird unwanted attention because of a much bigger, much more radical project I want to undertake. I think the dudes are just trying to prevent me from getting any momentum. If you visit the talk page for my Sandbox you will understand what the real fuss is about.

(Vhfs (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I will point out that the list of Wikipedians by number of edits is in Wikipedia space and not an article, similar to the various policy pages, and therefore has no bearing on this. G S Palmer (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for those interested in understanding Vhfs' position and reasons for creating the article, see this comment that she left on my talk page. G S Palmer (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that the "push back" has "nothing to do with this list". As the editor who brought this to WP:AFD, I can tell you that when I did so, I was unaware of any other kerfuffle that you had been involved in. I did not read your Talk page until you started your personal attack on JamesBWatson (the posts that you see "from me" there were placed automatically by WP:TWINKLE, the tool that I use to mark articles that to bring them into the articles for deletion process.) I can also tell you that it is normal for an article that has been brought to AFD to get the attention of editors, because there is a listing for doing just that, and then Gene93K comes along and does fine work placing it in certain subcategories by interest, so editors particularly interested in those categories can find those discussions. I would appreciate if you would retract your unfounded accusation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A list of names is not original research. The definition of research, according to OED online: "Systematic investigation or inquiry aimed at contributing to knowledge of a theory, topic, etc., by careful consideration, observation, or study of a subject." Nor is this list a "directory." Nor does every name on every Wikipedia list have its own entry (though I do understand that, according to WP:NOTIFS, they should). I see no other reason why this list should not exist as long as all names have their own entries. According to WP:COI, some editors should consider lending their knowledge and experience to one of the other 4.5 million articles, as their work on this subject no longer seems to be aligned with Wikipedia's mission: "to empower and engage people...to collect and develop educational content..." They seem to be more concerned with using their power and privilege to destroy this much-needed list. --Unitedcrushers 23:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Unitedcrushers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, thank you for that bad faith comment. G S Palmer (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you can show that JamesBWatson and I have conflicts of interest, you may raise a case at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, describing the supposed conflict and reasons why we should be barred from editing this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Added later: Please note that my comment and the one preceding were made before User:Unitedcrushers deleted my name and Watson's name from his comment. (Perhaps he figured out that Watson and I both already contribute to far more articles than most Wikipedia editors?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – Mostly unsourced, mostly non-notable entries, and very little worth salvaging. May I also mention the lack of articles titled List of art historians and List of men art historians? (If they existed, I would have suggested a merge. Oh, well.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lack of those other articles doesn't inherently mean that we cannot have this article, of course; I pointed to them in my original filing mainly because if the either existed, it might be a good candidate for "merge" (and if the "men" article had existed and had survived an AFD in the past, that would make some strong points for arguing that this article should survive as well.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even without a merge—which would have been my preferred choice—this list is poorly sourced (only 4 refs) and consists of 90% non-notable names. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that there isn't a separate list for men is a rather fatuous deletion argument that rather misses the point of why we ever separate out women or other minorities in other fields. The better point is that we don't automatically make separate demographic lists for every occupation, but instead generally expect some showing that the particular group (whether ethnic, sex, etc.) has been recognized in secondary sources as of relevance to a cultural or historic understanding of that occupation. So every protest above that this is novel work or that we should do it because no one else is doing it is by that measure actually an argument for deletion.
And I agree with you on the dismal merge/expansion prospects of this list. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at some point this article may be merited - but only once an extensive List of art historians (which would have to be well sourced and consist almost entirely of notable figures) has been in existence for a long enough time and is extensive enough to be split. In other words, this is a case where WP:TNT is applicable. G S Palmer (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This needs to be nuked, with only the salvageable 10% of the article recreated into a more comprehensive list of women historians. Epicgenius (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to keep due to the cleanup performed on the article by Drmies and Jooojay. Epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TNT doesn't apply; there's no reason, if more refs are desirable, that you can't add refs. An interesting topic. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions are relevant to that comment. "It's interesting" does not establish notability: see [[WP:INTERESTING. Saying that there are sources if anyone wants to find them, without actually providing any sources, is covered by WP:MUST. Sources that someone vaguely suggests "must exist somewhere" but does not say where are not verifiable. 217.158.67.208 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — 217.158.67.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I was writing an informal and common sense endorsement, not WikiLawyering. In strict policy terms, the topic is clearly notable and the mediocre sourcing is no grounds for deletion, I am pointing out that sources should be easily found, and the deletion argument IP advances sounds a lot like an attempt to grind a WP:AXE against feminism, anonymously, through an argument that's really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey hey!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_mathematicians (04:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs)

- So? See WP:WAX. The case for notability for female mathematicians is clear because of associations like the Association for Women in Mathematics and books like Women in Mathematics (Lynn M. Osen, MIT Press, 1974; my copy says it's the 15th printing from 1999). And you will also note that that list is almost entirely bluelinks. This list, on the other hand, mostly lists people with no Wikipedia article yet and sources for separating out women as an interesting subclass of the art historians seem hard to find or nonexistent. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The List of female mathematicians, for the most part, contains only notable names, i.e. those with articles. And there's also category:Lists of mathematicians. Epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, this is a nothing more than a poorly-sourced list of names. As mentioned previously, Wikipedia is not a directory, and very few of the art historians listed within the article currently have a Wikipedia page, which I believe undermines the notability of the list. Meanwhile, in attempting to keep the article, the creator has threatened to write to Ms Magazine, mentioned football a few times, attempted to justify the article through WP:OTHERSTUFF, tried to turn the deletion debate into men vs. women, and has been downright rude to JamesBWatson, in particular. Considering the article is already in danger of being deleted due to notability and sourcing concerns, those arguments do not seem like the most productive way to defend the article. Drpickem (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced as per VoluntarySlave and in the interest of avoiding systematic WP:BIAS. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't keep a list of female art historians merely because it would help to redress gender imbalance; that smacks of being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You might as well say we should keep a list of female house-owners because to delete it would be to further systemic bias. It's true that it would, but the subject is not notable. GoldenRing (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing!

I'm not referring to systematic bias in the outside world - the Real World - just the systematic bias within Wikipedia that's described at WP:BIAS.

WP:BIAS describes one of the problems as "a dearth of articles on neglected topics".

The nominator named the absence of a topic article as one reason for deletion. IMO the fact that this seems to be a neglected topic within WP should not be cause for us to neglect it even more, thus exacerbating the bias.

Hope that's clearer.

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The noting of the absence of a topic article served toward being rigorous about checking for notability; while the absence does not prove lack of notability, the presence of a topic article, particularly had it survived an AFD itself, would have been clear indication that the general topic was notable, and a properly curated list would likely be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - could someone explain to me why lists such as this one are permitted on WP at all? WP:SAL says "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines" but these policies are routinely flouted in hundreds of article such as this one. Take the first name - it just says "Adams, Ann", none of the other boxes are filled in, no reference, no link to another WP article (although that would not count as a reference), nothing. How do we know there is even such a person, never mind an art historian notable enough to be on WP? It could be somebody's auntie that a bored teenaged added to the list as a joke. IMO all these list articles are just stupid and worthless as encyclopedia articles, every name on that list should be deleted unless it is cited to a reliable source establishing notability.Smeat75 (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, very roughly and crudely put, why the article is listed at AfD. GoldenRing (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per many others here. On two grounds: 1) WP:RS are lacking for almost all of this list, suggesting a lack of notability of the subject. 2) What references there are, are almost entirely to a website called 'www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org', suggesting that even if the article was well-referenced, it would be a WP:DIRECTORY. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Update: Drmies votes keep after article improvement and DGG's comments.] There is no conceivable reason why a list of women art historians could not exist. I suppose the only thing that should be established in such an article is a rationale for why it should focus on women (setting aside any third gender or other options). If it is true, for instance, that women are underrepresented in that profession, as they are for instance in math and physics (I worked on a female physicist's article, forgot which, in the context of a women edit-a-thon last year, if I remember correctly--one of those women who couldn't get a real job or real position: I think she was the wife of a German refugee, at Princeton?), and such a truth, if it exists, should be bolstered by reliable sources, then we have a perfectly valid reason for writing it up. Such a rationale does not exist for List of male physicists, to take an obvious example.
But while a link was given to "purpose" (WP:LISTPURP), no link was given to WP:LSC ("criteria") or, better yet, WP:CSC, "selection criteria". And the simplest way to create such a list and have it be meaningful is to include, as is common practice in tons of list articles, only entries for people with articles on Wikipedia. Simple. One could make an argument for allowing redlinks, but that's fraught with problems better handled on the talk page, though such a list with red links (the equivalent of our current list, really, but with lots of square brackets) easily falls into DIRECTORY territory.
This is the problem with our current article: it's a directory, especially given the table format, lacking only place of employment and email address (and one has "African" as a profession??). Given the lack of a rationale for this list (that is, a rationale that can be claimed to be encyclopedic--not activism, as sympathetic as I am to that cause), and given its current state (which is poor, very poor), I have to say delete. However, a pruning of this list, which I could envision as a. giving it a lead (it needs a lead) with a referenced rationale and b. pruning to keep only those entries with blue links, would immediately sway me to keep.
On a separate note: I have no problem with activism, but it needs to be done properly and usefully. There is no point in claiming SYSTEMIC BIAS in this discussion (unless to counter something obviously stupid); it's a larger Wiki matter. To those who wish to improve Wikipedia, and its underrepresentation of female scholars (for instance), let me say that Wikipedia is not some insulated male-only bubble. We reflect a. the make-up and prejudices of our larger societies and b. what reliable sources have to say. Now, all you feminists (and I include myself), you can change what's decided by a. by joining and working here, changing the system from within. Per b., that often means digging deeper ("Hark ye yet again,--the little lower layer"), and for the academic scholars, that means publishing (outside of Wikipedia), including publishing on those women, on university tenure guidelines, on male-dominated systems, on the history of women scholarship--and when you do that, you make it easy for Wikipedia writers to include that material. But the first challenge for those interested is to write Wikipedia articles for such scholars, thereby undoing, at least partly, the DIRECTORY aspect of the current article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good points, Drmies. Thanks for weighing in. G S Palmer (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to very much support what Drmies has to say regarding encouraging the creation of individual articles on female art historians. I have not fully evaluated the Dictionary Of Art Historians as a source, but it looks to me like it's more of a (legitimate) Who's Who than a Who's Everybody, and if it is a reliable source could make a fine foundational source for a couple hundred article on individual female art historians, and to the degree that a page on Wikipedia provides visibility, create more visibility for female art historians. And getting an article on female art historians into some respectable source would both serve the activist desire in that direction and create more justification for a Wikipedia article on female art historians. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I cannot stress this enough, and I think that old hands like DGG and Randykitty will agree with me here, that article development is the single best way to put notable scholars on the map. Creating directory-style lists, even with the best of intents, is not. Thank you Nat and G S, and I really hope that someone will do some work on this article. The pruning is easy, establishing a rationale (of the kind I sketched above, perhaps) is a bit more difficult--but surely, with so many new accounts here who may have read the Ms Magazine blog posting and are possibly actually working in the discipline, there's someone on board who can do this. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redlink the female art historians who do not yet have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, cleanup, trim and/or redlink non-article subject persons. Advise all newcomers to read Drmies well thought out post above. Killer Chihuahua 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending cleanup under the clear and even handed guidelines Drmies has outlined above. Strip down to bluelinks, and start writing well sourced stub/start articles for important art historians who were removed from the list. (Save a draft somewhere in your sandbox so you can add names back in as you write articles for each.) The trouble here is that women have been systematically excluded from the histories of most disciplines, and thus it is much harder to find the sources for articles on women. This is something that must be acknowledged by the 90% male editorship of Wikipedia: there is a systemic gender bias baked into the requirements for notability. Unfortunately, this is not the place to debate that, as per the scoldings above. Where is the place to have that conversation? This is a serious question. I am happy to have that conversation on my or someone else's talk page, or the talk page of a relevant project, though I am sure there is probably a proper process for this. I and others interested in this question will also be at the WikiConUSA next week if anyone wants to discuss IRL.--Theredproject (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it must be acknowledged. I suppose you could say it's baked into our notability guidelines to the extent that we require reliable sources, but it's not like it would be wise to shift away from reliable sources. Wikipedia can create much hullabaloo, but we can't really create history (better, historiography). Feminism is an ongoing struggle, and for our purpose, Wikipedia, we're still very much in what in my discipline has been called the "look, there's a woman, and there's another" stage--the stage of recuperating history. Either way, the best thing any of us can do, those who see and those who don't see various types of systemic bias, is to write the articles that are missing. But I digress--thanks for your comment, Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. At this point, this is one of the worst examples of a directory page that I have seen in a long time. I agree completely with Drmies: the goal is worthy, but this is the wrong means. With a little bit more effort than what went into this particular disaster, an editor could use the Dictionary Of Art Historians to create dozens or more articles on women that are art historians. That's another strange part of this list, by the way: it's a list of art historians, many are indicated to have "art historian" as a profession (rather superfluous, it would seem, in a list of art historians), but even more surprising, many have no profession at all... Anyway, to redress the (indeed existing) imbalance of coverage that currently favors male academics, it is better to create good biographies of women than listcruft like this. Like Drmies, I'd be willing to change my !vote if this article would be pruned along the lines that he indicates. --Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Drmies, given the huge improvements to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I've suggested above, add [[Category:Women art historians]] to each of them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful about slotting them in a "women" category; some of us may recall the rather loud and public struggle not that long ago about the category of women novelists (I believe it was; some writerly section), where the creation of the subcategory was seen as simply taking women out of the category of novelists. Women should not be categorized as "women art historians" unless they are also categorized under some other subcategory of "art historians" (along topical or perhaps national lines); barring that, they should simply be in the category of "art historians". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many thanks to those with clear heads joining the conversation (specifically: Drmies). Some of us have already admitted that the article needs severely edited/pruned if it's going to stay active -- this suggestion wasn't readily accepted by some of the first editors to flag the article (who want to simply delete). I look forward to working with those of you who are willing to put in the time to flesh out this article, including writing pages for those listed who are unlinked. Just because there is not a current page does not mean the listed individuals are unwarranted (this will be a case-by-case issue according to Wikipedia [edit: term corrected] policy). At the same time, I'd only ask some of the commenters here to consider their initial reactions to the article, and understand how their judgements negatively impact the growth of the Wikipedia community. --Studiojunk (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them. G S Palmer (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the helpful comment. --Studiojunk (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability of topic not established by reliable sources, WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has improved significantly so my previous comment is not valid anymore.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, which states, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This seems like an appropriate cross-categorization that fulfills "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" since one can see similar lists at Category:Lists of women by occupation. I think there should be a List of art historians as well; Category:Art historians does exist. If this list is kept, then we should add Paula Hays Harper to the list. Here is her obituary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, I found this at an Oxford University Press bibliography-related page with the introduction stating, "A renewed and theoretically developed as well as activist feminist consciousness initially mandated the historical recovery of the contribution of women as artists to art’s international histories to counter the effective erasure of the history of women as artists by the modern discipline of art history. This has also led to a rediscovery of the contributions of women as art historians to the discipline itself." The second sentence is what I wanted to note here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding/posting this link! --Studiojunk (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Studiojunk: Got another one! This says, "This display presents a group of women working as historians and art historians in the Victorian period." It mentions Anna Johnson and Emilia Dilke. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the vast majority don't even have articles about them, and redlinked lists are discouraged. Women in art history doesn't seem to be a sufficiently covered topic unlike some other fields. I suggest the creator focus their efforts on building a List of art historians as a first pass.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete though I'm very much in favor of creating articles for female art historians, and art historians in general! But women earn the majority of doctorates in art history—75% in 1998 according to the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates—in contrast to the balance of doctorates earned in fields like philosophy, math, etc.. Note that I am NOT arguing that they have equal pay or professional opportunities, and faculty makeup would be another conversation. A List of Art Historians seems like a place to start, if you really need a list page. I'd rather just see the articles created. This thread is long, but has anyone pointed out the great American Women Novelists controversy? That might be something for the pro-list side to consider, if haven't already. Also, could some of these names be moved to the work actively being undertaken at WikiProject: Women Artists? StaceyEOB (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while in general I think redlink lists are rather unhelpful, they can also be a tool to invite others to collaborate and participate to build article in an underserved topic area, conceptually, the list seems sufficiently noteworthy, I'd recommend that we update the the redlinks to point to draft namespace pages for the redlinked pages. It seems like the notability discussion would be better served about each entry rather than the list itself, if at all. Jared Zimmerman (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep art history is a distinct profession, and there are a large number of women in the field, so the most notable of them will justify articles by WP:PROF. The problem of redlinks is solved by making articles--and the argument just above of this particular topic leading itself particularly well to articles, is especially relevant because of the active editathons in this and related areas--a guide like this to needed articles would benefit the encyclopedia, and whether it benefits the encyclopedia is the basic criterion for everything (it;'s the specific principle behind our most basic policy, IAR if necessary). (Incidentally, tho women may be the majority of contemporary art historians, this was probably not the case before the very late 20th century,and certainly not for the 19th century and earlier.) DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this a bit and I'm doing a terrible job and having a terrible time. It's easy to beef up the Feminist art theory angle, which is what many sources are talking about, but about women in the profession, not with the sources I have. (Also, thanks for your comments, DGG.) Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great contributions! I wonder if it would be useful to separate the list into broader historical categories: 20th/21st centuries; 19th c.; ca, 1400-1800 (Early Modern); Pre-1400? --Studiojunk (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is such an important and unique list, besides it becoming a bad PR issue if we delete it - it would an unfortunate to have lost this for our future new users. Red links can be a tool to collaborate on new things. This should not be a debate about the list but rather a debate about each entry for notability. Jooojay (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an important contribution to an ongoing debate trying to bring gender parity to different areas of knowledge. The article needs to be improved but it is a very useful and much needed first step. I am thankful for this and for similar posts such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_architects for helping recognize parts of history that have been willfully deleted up to now. Anamarialeon (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Anamarialeon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep - as the original Article For Deletion nominator, I am finding that the superior efforts by some editors to find references that I missed have brought the topic to a point where we have, if not yet 100% solidly crossed a rubicon of notability, reached the point where it seems quite likely that line will be crossed with a bit more development. To avoid the WP:DIRECTORY concerns, I feel we should limit it not just to blue links, but to blue links+names with references that suggest a high likelihood of being able to meet notability requirements should an article be created. (As example, a reference to a listing in the Dictionary of Art Historians would qualify; a basic listing on a faculty list would not), and where that reference includes mention of the individuals gender (not because we should list only those for whom the gender is a significant attribute, but for the mundane reason that, well, we've already had to take one man off of the list; names that sound feminine to a modern American may be masculine in other places and times.)
For those of you new to the Articles For Deletion process, let me note that my change in stance does not stop the process; other editors have waded in with their own arguments for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main concern is that no corresponding List of men art historians or even List of art historians exist. I think it might be worth moving this page to the latter title, and expanding it to include men as well, possibly utilizing the contents of this version of Vhfs's sandbox, or the pages from Category:Art historians. G S Palmer (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G S Palmer that version comes straight from the Dictionary of Art Historians, and if you want to use it, it has to be properly footnoted before it goes out. That is why I did not post it, and kept it in my sandbox. Plus I still think there needs to be a separate one just for women. Both...okay fine. You can make the big searchable by gender...but I still think there has to be a comprehensive one for women only also. MOFOS. Because interesting things emerge, always, when you focus on the various dimensions of one category. I have more to say but I am traveling. (Vhfs (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I was just suggesting that we use your sandbox as a resource, since you've already gone to all the work of cataloguing a large number of male art historians. (And by the way, call me ignorant, but what does "MOFOS" mean?) G S Palmer (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list in my sandbox is the complete list of men *and* women, not just men, of course all one would have to do is remove the 200 or so women. Again, I did not catalogue it, it comes straight from the dictionary of art historians website, so it needs to be thoroughly footnoted. Um, for the record, I think the discussion on this page, and my sandbox talk page is completely ridiculous. And a public relations disaster already. I also think that the page is being policed and/or vandalized rather than edited, and if Wikipedia editors are really 90% male, then I certainly do not belong here. High-five guys! You have driven a committed and passionate writer, with some not so bad ideas, elsewhere. In any case, I am officially on vacation now, so my work here is done, for the next little while anyway, and possibly forever. Because this has been a truly *horrible* experience. Really really awful. And I really don't think I want to have anything to do with Wikipedia ever again.

BRAVO MOFOS! (Vhfs (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Well, there are a couple of editors in this very AfD who are trying to keep the article, which I thought was the purpose to begin with. Reasons for not including people without Wikipedia articles were given and supported, and I supplied the article with text that in my opinion warrants a "keep". So you can call people "motherfuckers" all you like, and I'll chalk that down to enthusiasm, but it's hardly the way to get people to help you save the article in the first place. And again, a footnote to that dictionary doesn't make a person notable by our standards (not every academic is notable--I'm not) any more than a link to a faculty directory at a university or a phonebook. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage you to stay, especially since "keep" seems like a likely outcome, but if you do, you might want to read Wikipedia:Civility. G S Palmer (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vhfs We need more dedicated females users like yourself, I am sorry you have had a really horrible experience thus far with Wikipedia but I encourage you to stick around. You are doing important things, if I can be of help to you please feel free to talk to me. Jooojay (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the good work by Drmies and Jooojay. G S Palmer (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G S Palmer thanks Jooojay (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ~~Despite the creator's best efforts to argue that this is advocacy and original research, and to alienate anybody trying to improve the article,~~ this will most likely be a useful tool in developing content related to notable women art historians. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not join Wikipedia or academia to make friends. I feel terrible for alienating a gaggle of pedantic twits who seemed to have joined Wikipedia only so they can tell people what to do. The list in its current state is completely pathetic and devoid of the original spirit in which it was proposed, and now has less entries than the online dictionary of art historians, and is even more standardized and boring. These "improvements" were made mostly by men, who are not art historians, as far as I can tell. Believe me when I tell you I am completely fascinated to see what happens next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably just as well, Vhfs. As an academic you have privileged access to outlets for advocacy and the publication of your own research that others do not. For you to choose instead to enter a user-edited collaborative project in which ownership of material is impossible and then act as though your privilege made you the arbiter of the contributions of others would probably only lead to disappointment. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC) It occurs to me that like many academics you think of Wikipedia as not having peer review, but consider this potentially a feature rather than a bug. In fact, Wikipedia is subject to peer review, only your peers in this context are random people on the Internet. If you want to be treated as more than a random person on the Internet, find a different outlet. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is vital to keep the discussion on the content, not the contributor. Please continue to discuss the content, not the person who nominated the article/whoever voted to !delete, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Totally interesting and useful article. Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So basically WP:ILIKEIT? Tutelary (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sidebar: Is this response useful? I take a moment here not to single out Tutelary, who is only following a common Wikipedia practice, but to question whether the practice makes sense. Let's suppose we don't know Bus stop at all. If BusStop were new, this would simply be WP:BITE, shaming the new user for their lack of policy-based arguments and couching the bite in arcane WP acronyms intended to drive the point home to the audience while vexing the newbie. If BusStop is a salty old hand with thousands of edits (as happens to be the case), then presumably he's not only saying WP:ILIKEIT, and this is just point-scoring for the debate team. At this point, in any case, after all the hard work by User:DrMies and others, the article is clearly tending toward keep; what's the point of tendentiously haranguing Bus stop? To make him feel bad? To punish him for disagreeing here, in the hope that he'll be less likely to disagree in some future AfD? This just reinforces WikiTribalism, the regrettable tendency for deletionists to mass together to support AfDs and completionists to mass together to oppose them. In addition to good faith, might we assume that not all our colleagues here are always knaves and fools? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's useful. Afds should be based on what the content is and its appropriation in policy, not in subjective emotions. I see a ton of this, saying that it's the 'not all men' or 'privileged' crowd which is mainly focusing and creating animosity towards the editors. I'm not going to comment on your theory of deletionists/inclusionists, but an 'interesting and useful article' is not an argument based on policy, which is what afds are meant to discuss. Tutelary (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it doesn't sound like it's policy based. But it's trivial for a WikiLawyer to take the sentiment and dress it up in the appropriate garb. Specifically, "interesting and useful" is actually not a terrible summary of WP:GNG and is actually quite a decent shorthand for WP:LISTN which is most directly at question here. But "interesting and useful" is also easy to write and comes naturally to mind; why not let people write it occasionally? 'We all know other factors can come into play; what User:Bus stop was saying, I think, was that in this case they don't. As that point has been made many times above -- and what point has not? -- it seems a small lapse to slip into casual language. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't cite WP:GNG nor any other policy. why not let people write it occasionally? Because it isn't an argument, afds should be based on merits in policy, not subjective emotions as I've said before. I could say This article has terrible formatting and often has chopped wording when referring to the first version of the article about 9/11, because it was written in haste about the event by the editor that first created it. That doesn't make the event non-notable, nor the article deletable. The conspiracy theories on why TV is Satan may have some good prose, interesting content, but that wouldn't make the article notable in its own right. Tutelary (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is focussed. This is a quality that is important. The area of study set out by the title creates a scope that is inherently interesting. The attractiveness of that scope contributes to the article's usefulness because it is a pleasant article to peruse. The columns are useful: Name, Nationality, Dates, Specialization and Profession. This makes for easy perusal. The columns of "Specialization" and "Profession" advantageously provide more than one piece of information in some instances. I think it's an overall good article. I see no reason to delete it. I would change the name to "List of female art historians". The term "women" is politicized and by contrast the term "female" tends to be more simply indicative of gender. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that possibility when I moved it from it's original title, List of art historians who happen to be women, but thought it would be best to not change it too much. Your title rolls off the tongue a bit easier, though. G S Palmer (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guidelines. The need for this list is now articulated in the lede. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/#.U4JkHdT9BUM.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vhfs, what are you trying to imply? I, myself am a woman and I've been editing Wikipedia profusely. Sure I had a few vandals vandalize my userpage, add 'cockblack master' specifically. You just shrug it off. Tutelary (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vhfs it is offensive to link that here - because it has nothing to do with what is going in here. You received no rape or death threats and as far as I can tell no-one even referenced your gender during this debate - on the other hand you have called editors mofos and accused them of all sorts of nefarious deeds mostly based on their gender so if anyone is guilty of what is described In that article it's you. Please assume good faith and stop attacking the motives of editors here with passive aggressive links to horrible descriptions of misogynistic harassment on the internet, which is exactly what you didn't receive here - instead I see editors patiently explaining that the main reasons you detailed for keeping this article were actually excellent reasons to delete, since you admitted the topic isn't covered outside Wikipedia and it therefore must exist here first - which belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the project. Your behavior here has been esp immature esp since you claim to be an academic, and if you really want to fight sexism on Wikipedia this is not the front lines, it's very far from it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very uncouth, very faux pas. Wow. Would this have a parallel to Godwin's law? Shenme (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most educational and encyclopedic. Has been and continues to be the subject of significant discussion in numerous secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As is customary, I have been watching this debate since my initial contribution. At first I was inclined towards deletion for this page (please see above), on the ground that at the time it was an indiscriminate list and therefore breached our guidelines on such matters. Later, following excellent work by Drmies and Jooojay, and having carefully read the continuing debate, I changed my view and came to support the retention of the substantially improved page (again, please see above). The discussion here has been most enlightening, with many editors making good and useful points, and has certainly resulted in a net improvement to Wikipedia.

However, although we have made substantial progress in improving the article and understanding the relevant issues, I feel that some contributors to this discussion have been profoundly and repeatedly intemperate. I am also deeply concerned that one editor in particular consistently ascribes to all of us a particular privileged position in society, and assumes that our opinions and actions are driven by this position. I would find this offensive even if I had such a privileged position, as it takes a fundamentally dehumanising view of individuals and ascribes consistent malice to all members of a given class, rather than considering each person as separate and equally worthy of respect. This alone makes it very hard to maintain good faith in the words and actions of this disruptive editor. However, I find this editor's comments personally upsetting on a deeper level. I myself am not one of society's privileged few, but not once has this editor bothered to address this either privately or in this debate; indeed, they haven't even bothered to check my status. I have plenty of experience of being de-privileged by white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males, but it is rare to be de-privileged by someone who ought, if their own claims of personal identity are to be taken at face value, to be on my side. Instead, I am swept up in the assumption of white masculinity, and suffer the blanketing scorn of a relative newcomer here, simply because I'm trying to do the best I can as an editor of Wikipedia. I find it remarkably unpleasant to have to undergo such name-calling, combined with repeated assertions about how we ought to do things, what kinds of beliefs we should hold, and what kinds of things Wikipedia should cover, all delivered from a position that is itself entirely that of the privileged academic. I find this hectoring, disruptive, and ultimately hypocritical. It is not constructive to claim that Wikipedia is adopting one privileged position when the alternative being offered is simply that of current academic discourse, which is another equally privileged position in our society. It is particularly regrettable that despite being asked several times for a moderation of tone, one editor in particular has continued to be excessively rude, disruptive, and unable to work within the constraints of fair and rational debate. I hope this does not affect the outcome of this deletion debate, but I also hope we can address the problem of an editor who consistently does not assume the good faith of other contributors to this project, and instead appears to follow requests for moderation with more extreme comments. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! RomanSpa! "white, anglo-saxon, heterosexual, protestant, able-bodied, able-minded, monogamously-married, middle-aged, traditionally-educated cis males": I resemble that remark! I checked at least six of those boxes. As for the meat of your comment, I am an administrator here, so check it, I'm super-privileged, wielding a phallus as well (read your Lacan, people: a phallus is not a penis). I don't want to go into too much detail, since this discussion is already too long and will hopefully be closed soon, but I'm somewhat loath to act administratively. I did leave a note, a kind of warning, if you will: no one appreciates being called "motherfucker" (it's kind of a sexist term as well), and I for one do not appreciate, like you, being lumped in with some group. Having said that, Joojay below points out some redeeming factors, and those are probably why I haven't acted more forcefully. So let's try and cover this with the "mantel der liefde", as the Dutch would say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a newer, female user to wikipedia myself, I can say it is an intimidating place sometimes. Clearly Vhfs does not feel welcome here in wikipedia (as she mentioned above) and has lashed out in reaction. And most of this is caused by her not understanding how to edit/basic order of things (such as write articles first, then make lists after) because she is a new user and when she made minor mistakes it caused established users to get upset and need to correct the errors (and instead of admitting mistakes she became more defensive). My issue with this is how we as a community respond to mistakes and the unforgiving nature of not welcoming new users (esp. new users with good intentions). VHFS has made some much needed suggestions, I think we needed a list like this one and I hope we see more from this user.Jooojay (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split The list has been basically re-written since the nomination, adapting it to Wikipedia standards. In fact, the introduction now reads like an article on women in art history and at least its second half should be transferred to the article women artists, imo. If this list is intended to be about notable female art historians, then the text should be about their status in art history, not about women's status in art history or even arts in general. That said, I want to stress two additional points:

A complete list of all women art historians (as intended by the list's creator) is completely beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Other editors have already elaborated on this in extensive fashion, so I just want to note that this touches the very principles of Wikipedia, and it's been quite a bold effort (to say the least) by vhfs to interpret its "user-drivenness" as a free ticket for establishing her own agenda and just that. You don't join a chess club and then ask, "So, who wants to play some checkers?", do you?
On the other hand, I actually do think lists (and not just internal working lists) can benefit from adding redlinks. Now, I know that pretty much every current guideline urges editors to do anything but that (and, instead, to write sub-stubs paraphrasing those external links anyone can find via using his or her preferred search engine anyway), yet the problem with only leaving blued entries in such a list is that, in doing so, we deliberately undermine its advantages over, say, categories, using Wikipedia's writing process as a reference instead of the person's academic reputation. Being a geographer by profession, I know there're some hugely influential geographers missing in the list of geographers, while some barely notable ones are included. This isn't just a compromise by which we take some losses (or whatever you might call it), but the ignorance of our own standards (i.e., notability is created outside of Wikipedia). We should either explicitly indicate that these are merely article index pages, or allow for the addition of some (!) redlinks selected by a person able and willing to judge the related topic. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Axolotl, thanks, but let me take issue with one little thing: the "second half" isn't about women artists. (Besides the fact that the issue of women artist and woman art historian is mixed up inextricably: see talk page.) The WCA, for instance, is an organization run by art historians, even though it also includes artists. Likewise, that statistical note is about art historians, not artists. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure if you have noticed this...but I am not someone who merely accepts the status quo, as it is organized or presented to me in Wikipedia, or anywhere else. "Be realistic demand the impossible!" is one of my most cherished sayings. And I am not defensive in the slightest. I have a different vision for what Wikipedia could and should be! Get over it. I think you have ruined my list to the point where it is completely unrecognizable and laughable frankly. I cannot believe Sister Wendy is now on it, who is a children's television entertainer as far as I am concerned, and has never ever been seriously cited in any academic context that I have had anything to do with, and you have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians, and there are only two Italian ones left. Which is pretty funny, if you know anything about art, you might know that Italy and France are kind of important! I hope you get that fixed, and that you have not alienated all the art historians yet, so they might offer to help you.

(Vhfs (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Vhfs, it is not your list so to speak. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, where people can edit existing articles and improve their content. In short, you don't own the article. Even if you are the page creator, you simply do not own the article and cannot lock out any edits from anyone due to you not liking them. (Though if you have a reason not to like it, you can bring it up on the talk page and explain why they shouldn't be on the list.) Also, you don't have to accept the status quo, you can do a proposal to get the rules changed, and if enough people agree with you on the way, then it will be implemented. Wikipedia has its policies and guidelines, and afd is one of them. Tutelary (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vhfs, ever noticed that if you yell at people and tell them they are laughable, that they then for some strange reason are less inclined to listen to you and work with you towards a common goal (a good list)? --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Not sure why the table. It needs to be alphabetized. It shouldn't be JUST women, but FEMINISTS. There are probably some men that belong on the list, too. Feminism should be the philosophical or political stance of the art historian in order to be included. There aren't that many. I'll work on it, too. ----Sue Maberry (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (talk)Go ahead, make that new list. I am all for lists. The more lists the better as far as I am concerned. There should be one for just women though because feminist or no, the treatment of male and female academics in the field, is different. Guys get bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round. I want women to know the score, and we cannot do that that without understanding all the dimensions of the status of women in the field, versus the status of men in the field. Who knew analyzing statistics about art historians could be so *hot*!?

I have to tell you this story...this semester one of my male students took me aside and very earnestly told me, that if I was nicer to people I would have more friends and get more support for my projects. (Vhfs (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You say, "I want women to know the score". The "score" consists of many parameters of women's contribution to and involvement in the field of art history and related fields. It can't be reduced to "bigger paychecks, more funding, better offices, more opportunities, and more fun all round" and it probably should not in an article such as this. This despite the fact that this article distinguishes between male and female. Researchers or merely curious readers have a part of a database of sorts at their fingertips with an article such as this. Aren't you referring to a hypothetical different article with a different title? I'm glad you initiated and worked on this article. But I take exception to the purpose that you are suggesting this article (list) serves. This article also serves entirely unrelated purposes. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maberry: The table is alphabetized by last name, although sortable on other criteria. As for a list of feminist art critics, that would seem to be a different list (surely with some overlap); the existence of this list would not rule out that as a separate article, and there is a good case to be made for a feminist list's existence. Do you specifically believe that a gender-based list should not (also) exist, and if so, why? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to make a List of feminist art historians, though at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The purpose of this list was women art historians and that's the topic of discussion, so they don't need to be feminist (of one wave or another) to be included. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving The List[edit]

It now appears that the list is headed for Keep and that it is, in Wikipedia terms, significantly improved. Vhfs observes, though, that a good deal has been lost. "You have taken out all the French and Spanish art historians,: Vhfs writes, "and there are only two Italian ones left." Plus, we've inserted a children’s TV personality, Sister Wendy, who Vhfs says really doesn't belong.

It's not hard to see how this can happen. On average, English wikipedia will have more thorough coverage of art historians in the English-speaking world. Editors working on a deadline to identify the most notable art historians from the original list will find more existing articles for people who work in English, and will find it easier to create and extend articles when the subjects work primarily in English. The one-week deadline of an AfD worsens this systemic bias: when time is short, editors reach for the low-hanging fruit.

I suggest listing the currently-omitted art historians at a convenient place -- perhaps the talk page. Provide, where possible, some lead references to their work. That will allow you, and others, to extend the list by identifying additional notable art historians and providing additional information about their contribution and notability. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for improving the list as this point is probably better placed on the article's talk page than on the AFD page. As for the exclusion of Sister Wendy, I do not think we should let that editor's insulting derision dictate content of the article any more than we let it dictate the flow of the AFD discussion. Sister Wendy is the host of a number of BBC art documentaries popular among adults, as well as the author of many books, both on art and otherwise. Whether those who aim their work at the common people rather than the privileged academic audience should be excluded is something that can be discussed on the Talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am sorry I made fun of sister Windy Nat Gertler. Not really. Look what I found!https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Historien_de_l%27art_fran%C3%A7ais, And then...https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Storici_dell%27arte_italiani, And then...https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d%27historiens_de_l%27art_et_de_th%C3%A9oriciens_de_l%27art :) (Vhfs (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Vhfs, you are welcome to translate some of those articles into English, and add them to the list. G S Palmer (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a citation from the Daily Telegraph and from a peer-reviewed academic journal now solidify Sister Wendy's status. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This may not be the place to bring this up (I don't know where would be), but I think it is seriously worth considering the possibility that User:Vhfs is not only trolling but also hoaxing. Having first taken the assertions of being an academic expert at face value, I now think it highly likely that this user is in fact a disgruntled student trying not-so-subtly to make the academic art historian Material deleted by another user for WP:OUTING concerns look like a fool. Is there any way of putting a stop to this? I'm inclined to think eradicating the whole edit history and letting others start from scratch might be the way to go. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a bit drastic, and I would also encourage you not to jump to conclusions. I think Vhfs is probably just reacting to the fact that one of her first articles got nominated for deletion, and is feeling irate. Once she has time to cool down I'm sure she'll want to put all this behind her. G S Palmer (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Philopater's comments might be wrong or right, and might also be a little bit too close to WP:OUTING to be entirely comfortable. Let's not speculate. I think User:Vhfs has given us no reason to doubt her academic expertise. If she has found this debate upsetting, she is not the first Wikipedian to find AfD an unwelcome surprise and she will probably not be the last. I see no point in speculating; let's drop the stick, Snow Close this AfD as Keep, and go back to improving the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not snow close, snow close is for when the opinion seems unanimous by all other editors towards !keep when only the nominator is the dissenting. There have been convincing arguments by both side, and would not qualify for a snow keep as consensus needs to be assessed. Wait until the 7 days are up. Tutelary (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Tutelary. A quick scroll upward suggests that, at this moment, the last 13 opinions were all keep. But there's no rush. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So copy/pasting an identifiable living person's social media profile to an "anonymous" Wikipedia userpage is not a matter of concern? It's not something I would want to happen to me. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's distasteful, but maybe you could just leave a note on her talk page about it. G S Palmer (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas: Please review WP:OUTING - even connecting the user to a specified outside person in trying to suggest it may not be then bridges some privacy concern. I have edited the specific accusation out of your comment on that basis, and hope that an administrator might review its inclusion so that it can be deleted from the record if need be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Added: I've flagged oversight; the material will be restored if I'm off-base. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the basis of her behavior here, I think that there is reason to suspect that User:Vhfs is not an academic but a troll with an agenda to discredit feminist editing by ridiculous and extreme conduct. I found it odd that while the original list contained a horde of black-text nonentities it missed such a distinguished historian as Dame Joan Evans, which suggests that the creator of the list knew little about the topic. Do I have any proof of these suspicions? None whatsoever. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 27 May 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long, Long Way from Home[edit]

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

not notable song no sources I+delete+things+alot (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources, and it's a notable song (#20 on Billboard chart). ... discospinster _talk 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Discospinster. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It charted. Sources available on the Google News Archive. Looks like there are a few relevant hits on Google Books, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable if it's #20 on Billboard chart. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw If it charted that is enough I+delete+things+alot (talk) 05:58, 22 May 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 00:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Elegant Legs (clothing)[edit]

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

Non-notable clothing label. Only references are to their website and a press release. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any independent sources for this. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:08, 21 May 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 18:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feels Like the First Time[edit]

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

not notable song I+delete+things+alot (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable song, #4 on Billboard chart. ... discospinster _talk 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A major hit by a top-selling band, obviously notable under our usual standards, and the nomination statement fails to state any serious basis for deletion.
Snow keep. Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to the song's chart peaks in the US and UK (numbers 4 and 39, respectively), there are sources available online from which to expand the body of the article [11][12][13], including a Daughtry cover version [14]. Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 08:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can sort of understand nominating "Long, Long Way from Home", but this has to be a joke. There are plenty of non-notable rock songs that you could nominate, but this is an iconic classic rock song that charted pretty high and has sources available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 20 May 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Judas Kiss (song)[edit]

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

not notable song I+delete+things+alot (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is Metallica. I have to question this nominator. He seems to be listing viable, per policy articles here and elsewhere on this page. WP:Disruptive. Any admins about? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Song does not pass WP:MUSIC has no coverage sources and did not chart. "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." I+delete+things+alot (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't know why the nominator contends that this song "did not chart" when there's a charts section right in the article (though it was unreferenced, which I've since fixed). I suppose that the article could use more coverage, but the single release and the fact that it charted highly on a good amount of notable national charts makes me think that the better route would be to place a stub template and let it expand. Holiday56 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw it charted I+delete+things+alot (talk) 16:04, 22 May 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. A merge discussion can continue at the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Love with My Car[edit]

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

non notable song I+delete+things+alot (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - B-side of Bohemian Rhapsody; sold millions. Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC says nothing about B-sides, it should be merged then. I+delete+things+alot (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability is not inherited so being the b-side of a very famous song by a very famous band does not save the article. The first sentence of WP:NSONGS says, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." So it fails that criteria with one self-published reference. Having established that there is nothing here which isn't already in the album article or in BR there's nothing to keep. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Richhoncho. Seems like a good solution. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in its current form contains significant encyclopedic information that would likely be lost in the event of a merge. I might add that the username of User:I+delete+things+alot is disruptive and should be changed per WP:USERNAME; it also contains a spelling or spacing error. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. Deletion doesn't improve our coverage of Queen. And sources are apparent in searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad - Queen's notable & so are there albums, You might want to pick a less disruptive name before nominating more articles!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 08:59, 25 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeport Hope School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. As a K-8 school it doesn't qualify for the inherent notability of high schools. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a redirect to Bridgeport, Connecticut. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the principal of the school. Our sister school, Bridgeport International Academy, has a wikipedia page which gave us the idea to create a wikipedia page for BHS. Are you saying that any school lower than high school isn't allowed to have a wikipedia page? (BHS is an elementary and middle school) I will be looking through Wikipedia's policies on the matter but any further explanation would be appreciated. (As will any advice to prevent deletion if possible and correctly follow wikipedia's guidelines) Elizabeth Deshotel 6:09 pm, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Beth.De: Wikipedia requires all articles to be notable. Per WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In most cases elementary and middle schools are not notable by Wikipedia's standards, but there is no rule against including lower schools per-se if that school has received significant non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. In practice, articles on high schools/secondary schools and school districts are usually presumed to be notable even without notability being explicitly demonstrated, but this doesn't extend to lower schools unless they can clearly demonstrate that they can meet the notability guideline. I would also suggest that you review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, as editing to promote your own interests, including your business interests, is strongly discouraged. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht:: Hello, my name is Dawn and I am the one who created the page for the school. (And the one who suggested it.) I'm a part time worker there. Yes it was for the business, but I also thought it would be a good way for people who want to learn about the school, as wikipedia is a popular place to research things. I didn't know of the notability rule, I always thought wikipedia was more free in terms of creating articles, but I do understand because otherwise they'll be all kinds of pointless articles created. (Like the student who saw me making the page and wanted me to make him one of himself. Yeah sorry but no, kid.) I'm still working on the page and I'll try my best to get it to follow all of wikipedia's requirements, but if it's pointless I would like to be told so in advance by an administrator. -Dawn 12:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawn.M.D: If you have reliable third-party sources that would help to establish notability to add to the article you should do so, but otherwise if you don't want to risk "pointless" editing you should wait for this discussion to be closed. Whether or not an article stays is determined by a consensus of editor opinions, with the final determination of the consensus being made by an administrator after a week (or longer if there hasn't been enough discussion or a consensus hasn't emerged). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ahecht, for taking the time to explain to us the reasoning behind why the page doesn't follow Wikipedia's standards. Recently we've been working to improve our online presence on the one hand to help the business, but also to help more people realize that we are a separate school from BIA. (We often get confused as a high school or our address is listed as their address) Because of Wikipedia's presence online we thought it'd be a good way to help with the latter. We of course didn't mean to break any rules and we understand if the page must be deleted. Dawn says she may make a few minor adjustments to the page in terms of secondary sources to get it to fit with the policies, but at this point we will wait for the consensus. One question I have is however, with the deletion of the page, will the images uploaded for the use on the page be deleted as well, or should we request deletion for those separately? Elizabeth Deshotel 2:35 pm, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable junior/middle school. Written (in good faith as an advert. WP:NOT. Atlas-maker (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. WP:NOT SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 22 May 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Lepage[edit]

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

Nice photojournalist, but mostly notable just for her recent unfortunate death. damiens.rf 15:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find a reliable source about her before she dies. Lpele (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I really don't get the "just for her recent unfortunate death" or "before she dies" point. There are sources (and good and reliable sources). The fact that these sources were published before of after her death is completely irrelevant. --Bsm15 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that her notability is, at beast, a WP:1E case. --damiens.rf 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep She was known before her death for her work, winning several awards and being published by most of the greatest newspapers. Enought sources to make a good entry with a lot of informations, and not only her death. --Kormin (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. For Wikinews. The subject can't be about an encylopedic methodology. Suprememangaka (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : There are sources - Camille Lepage - Journalist (PYOi): second prize in the category 'Portrait' for the Vanishing Youth series, in Pictures of the Year International in 2013, the oldest photojournalism contest, dating from 1944, a leading worldwide.

Press : New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, The Washington Post ,Der Spiegel, Libération, Le Nouvel Observateur, La Croix, The Sunday Times, Wall Street Journal, Vice Magazine, Al Jazeera and was widely used by BBC. She had also worked for several non-governmental organizations including : WFP, Enough Project, UNESCO, Internews, Crown Agents,Deloitte, Amnesty International and Médecins sans Frontières.

Interviews : Camille Lepage au Sud du Soudan Itw sur Vimeo.com Portraits sur : Grainedephotographe.com - Sceno - Dvafoto.com - Frontlinefreelance.org - Petapixel - Konbini--Photomaltese (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : There are a lot of sources all over the world. Jmex (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Camille Lepage was a young photojournalist with works already published in many significant papers in Europe and in America, with a Second Prize at POYi --Alain Schneider (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like she was notable even before her death. Even if that is not the case, all that would mean is that the article would be renamed Death of Camille Lepage, as the death itself is clearly notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -Look at her portfolio and then tell me she is most notable only for her death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.5.211 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Timing of coverage is irrelevant: obituaries are sources for a whole career but only appear when the person has died. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:46, 24 May 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 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Docusnap[edit]

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

This is unreferenced advertising that has been created very suspiciously as a first article by Marcus Band (talk · contribs). It was previously speedy deleted for advertising. No references = no indication of significance and no indication that it is truthful. Two new users also turned up: (P.dooney (talk · contribs) and Pavlosvos (talk · contribs)) and seem only interested in editing this article. I suspect WP:SOCKING and WP:COI. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up download sites and developer's conference press releases, but no significant, independent WP:RS coverage of this software. Also possible promotional issues, per nom.Dialectric (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: what was the search string for that investigation? --Marcus Band (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to write about a software that I use as a consultant for IT documentation. I found other products for the same usage here in Wikipedia: Whatsup Gold and MaSSHandra. They're linked from the wiki: Comparison_of_network_diagram_software. I don't understand why the docusnap article is marked for deletion, as the others are not. What do I have to add to make it better and useful for Wikipedia? --Marcus Band (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, everybody will write his first article here in Wikipedia. So this is my first one. --Marcus Band (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that the references were nonexistent, and are still not sufficient to establish notability. New articles must be supported by "significant coverage in reliable , independent secondary sources" - read WP:RS and WP:N. Press releases and company sites are not independent. The other refs are in German and while non-English sources are allowed, the lack of any significant coverage in English is an issue. The search I performed was 5 pages deep in google results for 'Docusnap'.Dialectric (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for the reply. --Marcus Band (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Phrase "this is my first article" is not an excuse for not following the rules. Please, make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia's rules and best practices, and please consider creating new articles via WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it's not an excuse for not following the rules. But this was not in my mind. I just wanted to say that it's a little bit difficult just to read that no notability was found, without the explanation how others were searching with what phrases. Google is not independent and it's a difference if you search in the US, in Britain or in Australia. You get other results. So for me as a newbie it's also important to understand how I can show notability. That was may intention. --Marcus Band (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did my search using DuckDuckGo, which does not provide location-aware results. Please, be careful with wording: Google is independent; your concern is that it is not deterministic. Still, it does not strip reputable verifiable sources, so it is OK for the purpose of establishing notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:06, 26 May 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 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Schlitz[edit]

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

Lacks the multiple, nontrivial reliable sources to build an article, tagged for over two years trying to fix. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, reliable secondary sources seem hard to find. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article treats the oxymoronically named "Institute for Noetic Science" as a serious academic enterprise, and lavishes praise upon this woman as being involved in said enterprise. Unfortunately the with half a brain can see through the nonsense that is "noetic science". Fails WP:PROF, might meet WP:GNG if additional sources can be found, but delete until then. Additional notes (1) there's a copy of this at User:Seofon/Sandbox. Secondly, the author Seofon (talk · contribs) appears to be an WP:SPA and Makevocab (talk · contribs) was blocked for block evasion by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) but I don't know who's sock he was. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holdings of her books number in the few hundreds, which is very low for the self-help publishing sector. There's quite a bit of YouTube and Twitter ephemera, but Schlitz also has a fairly large body of published research. WoS shows 29 papers going back to 1980, but an h-index of only 8. I would categorize this as very average. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very much a fringe parapsychologist, the problem being she is not notable enough and reliable sources can not be located. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 22 May 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 TomStar81 (talk · contribs) under criteria A11, G10, and A1. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manos Sergios[edit]

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

trolling. this person does not exist and his team does not exist. Someone edited an older video of Fernando Santos to make it appear that he is talking about this not-existing person. geraki ^T_L 11:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this news a joke? An amateur player being invited to the national team? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found several Greek Web sites reporting this supposed surprise appointment of a total unknown to a national team. I am not sure how reliable the sources are. However, the corresponding article on Greek Wikipedia, http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Μάνος_Σέργιος, was speedily deleted a couple of hours ago, with the deletion reason given as "Φάρσα ή διαφημιστικό κόλπο", which Google translates as "Trick or publicity stunt". On the whole, it looks to me like a widely-publicised hoax, with Wikipedia being used as one of the media for spreading it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 19 May 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 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xianlin Avenue[edit]

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

If every street had its own article, I dread to think how much storage space that would waste. FriendlyCaribou (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to Xianlin University City. Streets can be notable, high/main streets especially so but no indication this one is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disk space isn't the issue and Wikipedians are generally advised to ignore disk space considerations while editing (one can only imagine how maddening it would be to find their work removed due to low disk space!) That said, there doesn't appear to be much to say about this particular road, at least not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect for reasons already mentioned.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect for reasons already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshinnick (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with No Redirect. Non-notable thoroughfare fails notability. Only map references available. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Streets can be notable. But, in this case, no notability mentioned or established.Jersey92 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Is it snowing yet? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage found in reliable sources. It exists, but not notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 23 May 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 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosamund Lesley[edit]

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

Way too few credits to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I agree with my friend. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even one notable role. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:29, 20 May 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Fundación bus fire[edit]

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

This is more suitable for Wikinews Polyglot (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A tragedy with a lot of coverage in press. Seems like 31 children and an adult (the driver ?) were killed. How do we decide notability in road accidents? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIAS. 32 people dead should indicate some inclusion notability. More on the story here, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the reaction from the Colombia cycling team at the 2014 Giro. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let us work on it. Even the city and country name were wrong. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept because the event is notable (sadly). Edit needed - it is a stub and needs to be finished.Jersey92 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note. A duplicate article, Fundación bus fire, was created by a sockpuppet of a community banned user. However, it had been edited by others and was actually more comprehensive than this article was. Therefore I have moved and history-merged that article to this location. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, this is a snow keep, I guess. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 32 deaths makes this subject notable. Mat ty.007 17:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and help improve the stub. It is a notable disaster. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thank you all guys for making this article notable. I really appreciate it. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every single week in Colombia there is some accident involving a bus, I swear bus drivers are far more lethal than FARC rebels, but the roads are treacherous that I remember. This specific event only garnered temporary attention because most of the victims were children, but this is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing will change anyways. In any case, I did a quick google searched and found these other Colombian-based noted bus-related accidents that deserve an article if this one is kept: November 2013: 18 dead, 61 wounded[15]; February 2014: 7 dead, 29 wounded[16]; April 2004: 21 dead children, 24 wounded [17]; November 2013: 4 dead, 18 wounded[18]; December 2012: 27 dead, 16 wounded[19]. mijotoba (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Time to get working on that other stuff, I reckon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linder Joseph Borysovych[edit]

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

I do not know how to deal with this one. The claims and titles especially in the Japanese context are contrary to the normal way of things and bring into question the validity of all claims. I have no idea what a Juice mentor is but it probably has to do with a very bad machine translation. Currently I would class this in the same category as the Super Soke's from the west which are not notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he really is the "Founder of jujitsu and kobudo in the USSR" as the article claims, then he's probably notable. The problem is that there are no independent reliable sources to support those claims. Another problem is that the article appears to be a machine translation of this non-independent source [20], so it may well be a WP:COPYVIO. If the founder claim is untrue, then there's nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE since high ranks alone have never been considered enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jujutsu and Kobudo are not monolithic - certainly not in their country of origin. That statement alone has red flags popping up all over the place.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've had articles on other people that have been the first to introduce a particular martial art to a country and those people have generally been considered notable--with good documentation. That's how I interpreted that statement, but it currently lacks the needed sources. Of course, if it means he created his own style of those arts then that would be different and would not confer notability at all. IF independent sources are provided that show he really introduced those arts to Russia then the article should be kept. This seems unlikely, but I want to give the article's authors a chance to prove the claims. Otherwise there's nothing else that shows notability and the article should be deleted. The copyright issue is also a concern, but is irrelevant if the article is deemed not notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now the article fails to show he meets WP:MANOTE and I agree it looks like a copyright violation.Jakejr (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprodded. I stand by my original rationale: "I am afraid this entry may be failing Wikipedia:Notability (people). No mainstream, reliable sources seem to provide any significant coverage of that person." Pinging User:Tachs, User:Jodi.a.schneider. Creator notified. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoted in a few reliable sources, but that doesn't satisfy WP:BIO, which requires non-trivial third party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am here to give my concern on the flags raised on current article page. I created this page because I am a big fan of Patryk Wezowski and his lectures on Body Language. This made me create a wikipedia article on him. I started reading the guidelines and asked someone in the IRC chat to create the article for him. But they suggested I should go for creating the article myself. I created this article as I found him notable for cbs, fox, harvard, tedx, his books and an award winning documentary. References for these are already used in the article. Wezowski is the executive producer of the award-winning documentary Destressed, winner at Garden Stage Film Festival [21][22] this is also mentioned at the end of the interview here: [23] He was awarded in the Garden State Film Festival.I have read about the general notability and I find that he falls under the general notability criteria. Though I tried to keep the langauge neutral still if admin finds the language written as advertising then I would request other contributers to tweak it for neutrality. I would also request admins to clear the orphan issue as I have no idea to get it clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale behind accepting this article was that I found the subject of the article to be notable, established by adequate third party references and the area of his work, worthy of reference for any encyclopedia user. As the cardinal reason for checking on an encyclopedia is for reference and not for random reading, I felt the subject should not be denied space. --jojo@nthony (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. WP:NOT, WP:ADVERT. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep I don't think this is a subject to debate as he is notable in Belgium and outside too. I strongly agree with Tachs(jojo@nthony). As per the notability criteria if a person is notable in a country and has national media appearances then his article can be created. I would like to vote for his notability.He has been listed in national media of Belgium and here are the links to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentin1958 (talk • contribs) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]The links showing his notability outside are already used on the project page.

^ Standaad.be
^ Vandaag.be
^ Goedgevoel.be
^ Gva.be
^ Feda.belgium.be
^ Deredactie.be
^ Deredactie.be

Comment These sources are about one single aspect of his work: the Center for Body Language. He is not forefronted in any of this. As he an "Antwerp specialist" it seems reasonable that he would be more widely quoted in Belgium than elsewhere. However, it doesn't seem to me that simple quotes establish his notability. Of the links you give, this, this, and [24] do seem to talk about him significantly. The article as written would be better condensed into microexpressions in my opinion. If we are going to keep an article, it needs to be pared down until it is not promotional and focuses on e.g. the newspaper articles given.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:20, 27 May 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 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Mohammad Obaidullah Alvi[edit]

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

BLP lacking assertion of notability. Doesn't appear to be any RS about subject as sources fail verification for text they support, leaving a BLP with no sources for verification. (as another editor expressed on talk) Widefox; talk 07:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because:

same creator User:Atifsati of all these articles which fail WP:V
Atif Khalid Sati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) autobiography
photo in Qazi Mohammad Obaidullah Alvi links creator with nom'ed article - thus potential COI with subject's father:
Molana Mian Mohammed Abdullah Alvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Syed Fazal Husain Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - connection is at least source 1. is the an unreliable source by Qazi Mohammad Obaidullah Alvi
Political history of Circle Bakote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - again cannot verify, COI, appears political POV
other created articles just been PRODed, else I would bundle here:
- Molana Alvi Birotvi
- Abdurashid hadoti
Delete. Agree with nom; the lack of verifiable ref is a core policy failure (WP:V) and is serious enough this article may be a hoax. Perhaps the author just mistitled the article (using second/third names that are never used by the subject...). But as written, this should go even if verified due to failing WP:BIO, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No sign of passing WP:Prof or anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Xxanthippe. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD is bundle of several articles Widefox; talk 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political history of Circle Bakote (which says "to be continued" seems to be promoting the creation of a new subdivision. Syed Fazal Husain Shah - none of the sources I checked seem to mention him, and for some the titles even seem unlikely to mention him. Qazi Mohammad Obaidullah Alvi - anyone else finding that when you search on Google you might find thousands of hits shown, but when you start to click through they vanish? 11,000+ went down to 57 trivial hits. I see even his website is a free one. Usual problems with sources - eg " He has educated himself Semitic Theology by Holy Bible" is linked to a cite about a Bible, not about him. Molana Mian Mohammed Abdullah Alvi starts off badly with " eearnt the highest degree in Fiqh from a Islamic World University" (in other words an unnamed one). 2 sources, "Darul Uloom Deoband"[25] which has "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA" and [26] which again can't be verified but doesn't look as though it discusses him - the editor doesn't even know the name of the publication, just calls it " Islam in Southeast Asia: Political, Social, and Strategic Challenges for the ..". Atif Khalid Sati - once I start clicking, 47 hits. No evidence of the claimed awards. Delete them all - fake sources, etc. make me wonder about the editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just look at Molana Mian Mohammed Abdullah Alvi again - I checked the source for "He also joined Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind in 1940" and it only discusses Jamaat--e-Islami-Hind, nothing about the subject or 1940. I don't know if this is simply incompetence or what. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atifsati Widefox; talk 16:35, 24 May 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 closed. This was plainly a failed attempt to make a redirect by a newer editor, which I have fixed. No need for a discussion for these instances. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saparmurat Batyrov[edit]

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

it should be deleted or if the article it points to is relevant, turned into a redirect Polyglot (talk) 05:22, 19 May 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. (Note: This is a non-standard, procedural close.) Due to the nature of this entire debacle, things have gotten quite confusing and seemingly a ball has been passed on from one location to the next without any regard to the final outcome. That's stopping now.

Normally this AFD would have been able to determine the outcome of this article on its own, but that would be severely removing this discussion's content from it's overall broad-based community context. After the months long discussion that was had at the celibacy article (after the previous AFD close where consensus was considerably fuzzy), it has become unquestioningly apparent that "incel" is considered by the broader community (not SPA POV pushers) to be an unencyclopedic fringe theory. Therefore, this means the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site. That alone would be cause to close this AFD as delete, but there's an additional (recently discovered) piece missing from the puzzle: The creator of this article was a banned editor (User:ChildofMidnight) evading an Arbitration Committee editing restriction under the account (User:Candleabracadabra). Per our banning policy, the edits of a "reincarnation" of banned user can be revoked by any administrator at any time... Which is being done so here in part by this close.

At this point any editor (actually in good-standing) is free to re-create an article on Denise Donnelly if they so choose, but to include anything other than a few lines on her work on "incel" in the article would be a direct violation of the very clear consensus that has been established on this site over the past several months (much longer/stronger than a controlled 7 day long discussion might I point out - if any editor feels this is not the case, they are free to open a full RFC on the matter where a formal consensus can be displayed). - Let's move forward now please; too much of our good editors' time has already been wasted in this hopeless pursuit. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Donnelly[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)

What this is in reality is a biography of a living person masquerading as a recreation of Involuntary celibacy aka "incel", and "love shyness". That article has had an odd history of late. at a recent AfD, it was determined that there was a consensus that the notability was insufficient to justify an article, but editors believed it could be merged to celibacy. However, a few months later an RfC was held here, where the consensus was that the "incel" material was a fringe topic unsuitable for the article's subject matter, and thus removed. Now we have a rather curious...some would say bad-to-questionable-faith...creation of a bio for one of the "incel" proponents, but the bulk of the article is dedicated not to the person herself but rather the fringe material. What this is is an end-around of the initial AfD finding, where the sourcing is as weak as the case of another "incel" proponent, Brian Gilmartin, article deleted here. Nothing in the lead of this article, which is the only part that actually discusses the subject, is an indicator of notability. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like Tarc, I also suggested that the Denise Donnelly article is the Involuntary celibacy article in disguise. I'm not 100% sure if Denise Donnelly passes as WP:Notable; my first instinct on that matter is to state that she does not, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm interested to see what other Wikipedia editors have to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion right now on whether or not Donnelly passes notability guidelines, but I am slightly concerned that this is a way to try to recreate the incel article without actually discussing whether it merits an individual entry or discussing the inclusion of incel in the celibacy article. I do think that there is potential merit in discussing the subject again, FWIW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Exactly, Tokyogirl79. I took up this with the editor here,-> User talk:Drmies#Additional question on behavioural problem, probably with no succes. Hafspajen (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

To me it seems that the primary editor of this article is making a good-faith effort to reorganize material in a way that makes it a worthy addition to Wikipedia. Please judge the article on its merits, and don't allow yourself to be swayed by resentment about some perceived subterfuge that may have been far from the editor's true intent. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMICS. The scholar search linked above shows several papers with scores of citations, which to me meets NACADEMICS #1. The existence of articles such as this leads me to believe that she meets NACADEMICS #7 as well. Remember that AfD is not cleanup; if the article gives overcoverage to involuntary celibacy, then just fix it. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be the only article on involuntary celibacy on Wikipedia's English language encyclopedia. Deleting it would be a real shame but even better would be a lengthier article on the subject.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier deletions of the Brian G. Gilmartin and Involuntary Celibacy articles. It is, as the nomination cites, a case of using a biography as an excuse to include what is at this point quite clearly accepted as a fringe theory. By making an article about the only scholar who ever took a genuine interest in the subject the author wishes to have the material remain on wikipedia. Discussions on the previous deletion(s) and the talk page of the Celibacy page have shown that there is very little support for such a move. Involuntary celibacy is not and has not ever been a term or condition given any sort of credibility by authors and the creation of this article seems like an attempt to change that. When the article about Brian G. Gilmartin was deleted, it was deleted on much the same grounds: namely that he had constructed a theory called "Loveshyness" and that other then him, there were no scholars embracing the fringe theory. Both the article on Gilmartin and Loveshyness were subsequently deleted. I see various similarities in the two cases here. Based on this I am inclined to support a deletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a content that was put up for deletion and got merged on the wrong place. At the this talk page half of the talk page is about this issue. There was a community process, and now a new article was created by an editor, [27], same content. This is disrespecting the consensus. This editor has quite a history doing things against advices and now even broader community consensus. Notice that that there was a WP:AfD WP:Consensus on this topic of the involuntary celibacy, that said that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. This IS a recreation of Involuntary celibacy. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) made by Casliber. And article was created agains all the discussion and comments, here, Talk:Celibacy. Also, it appears to be the reification of an adjective and noun into a use that has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. WP:Undue weight. Hafspajen (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythic Writerlord: @Hafspajen: do you feel that your !votes are in alignment with the essay WP:NOTCLEANUP? VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do, yes. The article is merely a way of including material that can only be described as a fringe theory into Wikipedia. I don't think Donelly or "incel" will ever be notable enough to deserve an article of their own unless more coverage takes place and the theory is embraced by more people inside her field of work. Furthermore I find nothing worthy of an article in the life and work of Donnelly outside of the involuntary celibacy theory. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her work has been covered by the New York Times, Guardian, Fox News, Telegraph, LA Times and other major market media sources. Her work has also been covered in various book sources including Family in America, an Encyclopedia and Sex Matters: The Sexuality and Society Reader. As is noted above, she's also cited extensively and her work is discussed in academic sources. The sour grapes arguments and the "other stuff exists" that got deleted comments are totally irrelevant here and should be completely dismissed. The personal attacks should be met with spankings. According to Donnelly, involuntary celibacy is associated with crankiness. Her notability is very well established per very substantial coverage in numerous reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the contrary, it is very relevant. Editors such as SandyGeorgia explained that quite clearly on the talk page. Creating this article as you did and including all material that was debated is against broader community consensus. I strongly advise you to read asap: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, especially the part: Examples of disruptive editing: 'Wikipedia:Tendentious editing' and 'Does not engage in consensus building. Hafspajen (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking over Wikipedia:NACADEMICS#Criteria, I'm struggling to see which criteria Dr. Donnelly clearly passes. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see which of Wikipedia:NACADEMICS#Criteria she qualifies - she has had a single area of research which has not got traction general enough to warrant an article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: on scholar I see, for example, this which does not appear directly related to IC. According to scholar it has been cited 74 times. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she has done some interesting research. But that is a single (though often cited) study. My opinion still holds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was one example. This, this, and this are further examples of papers, not related to IC, which have each been cited scores of times. VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, still there is alot of good research here and there, but nothing major that qualifies for notability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet contribs, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

KEEP The article is noteworthy and while I do not agree the study is definitive (no other studies listed supporting this one) it does contribute information about an area of human sexuality. I am no expert in this subset but have some training in human sexuality so I see it as beneficial. Please do not delete articles because they do not fit personal viewpoints. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — 172.56.10.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Unfactual preceding comment[reply]

Please review our notability guides; WP:N, WP:GNG, among others. Deletion discussions are not votes, it is a measure of the opinions of established editors, arguing on the basis of the projects policies and guidelines on whether to retain or reject an article. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::TARC, please do not label me as a spa when it is a lie. The only contribution I made until now about this deletion is above. You however recommended it for deletion and try to assassinate my character with your BS label. Please respect All editors. Thanks. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The only contribution I made until now about this deletion is above...'" is precisely the definition of a single purpose account; the purpose of the tag is to alert the admin who eventually close this discussion that such comments will probably count very little if at all towards the final result. Tarc (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::: Not True again Read carefully, "about this deletion." I have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions. 172.56.10.214 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tiny handful of edits via this particular IP address, all dated today. Quite curious that a "new editor" knows enough about the project processes to leave Arbitration discretionary sanction warnings on users' talk pages. So while "SPA" is still more than appropriate here, it'd seem that identity-concealing sock is more apropos. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, they have a looooot of edits. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 11 is insufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1 in the hot field of pop-sociology. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep Campaign to delete this article is a part of an agenda to delete all mention of involuntary celibacy from Wikipedia, with same people giving the same bad arguments. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards or science. You now want to remove an article about a scientist that has been here from 2004 who wrote on various topics and was peer reviewed, as Vquakr notes. Maybe the part on involuntary celibacy should be somewhat trimmed but other than that there is no need to remove this article.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed since 5-18-14, where are you getting "2004" from? Some of the people who want to delete this see this article creation as an end-around run of the previous AfDs on the subject matter. Like it or not, this is a fringe scientific topic with no credibility in the actual world of research and study. An encyclopedia shouldn't be used to advance the cause of pseudoscience. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion arguments claim Donnelly doesn't meet the academic criteria, but the very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes her notability more generally. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient evidence that the subject is an authority in her subject. It's really that simple. I don;t see how this is least Fringe, and I unfortunately do think that this is part of a tendency to be extremely critical of articles of anything to do with serious academic sexology. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Donnelly received her Ph.D. in sociology NOT sexology. This is about a social behaviour and it is sloppily formulated, and against general use of the word. And, as said before, this has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, like WP:Fringe states here, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." So keeping that in mind, and the other stuff that WP:Fringe addresses, how is Denise Donnelly's involuntary celibacy research not WP:Fringe? Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream views in its particular field? 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? That's not clear to you? And its field is celibacy, by the way. You know, the topic almost always described as voluntary...as opposed to involuntary? But like I stated below to you, feel free to get the WP:Last word. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting me. I'm not insulting you; I'm doing my best to practice Wikipedia:Civility and arguing in good faith. The field is not celibacy, the field is sociology. The term Donnelly uses, for lack of a better term, is "involuntary celibacy", but it is also known by other names such as "sexlessness". None of the methodologies, observations, or conclusions expressed in this article are in any way contrary to mainstream sociology. I challenge you to cite even a single one that is. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being dramatic. If I've been insulting you, you've clearly been insulting me (just look at your comments below). Didn't know what I meant by "field" in this case? Okay, then. Since it somehow was not clear to you, even after others in this debate have essentially stated the same thing, here is what I meant: The topic is celibacy. Donnelly has expanded on the topic; her interpretation of celibacy departs significantly from the prevailing and mainstream view of celibacy in the fields of sociology and sexology (yes, that's right, "the field" concerns sexology as much as it does sociology). Hardly ever is the concept of involuntary celibacy employed in either field. That is the very definition of WP:Fringe. If Donnelly means involuntary sexual abstinence, which is far more common of a topic than involuntary celibacy, then that is what she should state. But, no, she has clearly built on what you refer to as "sexlessness" with regard to her own theories. She uses the word celibacy, not sexual abstinence or any of the other modern terms you want to use for it, when it comes to titling the concept at hand and she attributes that concept to being involuntary -- a view that the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources do not hold when it comes to the topic of celibacy (but then again, abstinence usually means "voluntary," not "involuntary," as well). And if her involuntary celibacy views were a concept already well embraced by researchers, the most she would deserve is a mention in the article about that concept, unless she has proven herself notable as far as Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is concerned. Like others and I have stated, she has not. You can obviously continue to assert that she has as much as you want to in this discussion, but your time debating this with me is over. Flyer22 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought: Like I mentioned in the previous AfD about involuntary celibacy, sources don't always define celibacy the same way; sometimes they simply state "unmarried" (the traditional definition); sometimes they state "unmarried and sexually abstinent" (or a variation of that, such as including "or"); and sometimes they simply state "sexually abstinent" (or a variation of that). And they often add "typically for religious reasons." Many people use the term celibate or celibacy to mean "sexually abstinent" (as noted in the Celibacy article), and going by these sources on Google Books defining involuntary celibacy, those sources are going by that definition as well. So in that way, and with what those sources discuss, I can see a Wikipedia article specifically about involuntary celibacy, or, more accurately depending on one's definition of celibacy, a Wikipedia article specifically about involuntary sexual abstinence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see what I stated here about Tokyogirl79's very acceptable version of an Involuntary celibacy article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article was created against previous consensus and is based on zero independent, secondary biographical sources. The reason is simple: she is not notable. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per DGG. A topic receiving a tenured position at a major university is not generally a fringe theory. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to agree with other editors that the work done by the subject is not "Fringe". The problem is that notability according to WP:Prof is not yet achieved: too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Nah, given the WP:Fringe guideline, I can't at all see how the topic of involuntary celibacy is not fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fringe because it doesn't "depart significantly from" (i.e. contradict in any way) the views of mainstream academics. It's far more controversial among Wikipedia editors than it is in academia. If you asked 100 sociologists whether the topic deserves to be studied, wouldn't you honestly expect 90+ of them to say yes? 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's WP:Fringe; plain as day, that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well if it's plain as day, then I apologize. Your mere assertion was one thing, but your reassertion really leaves no room for doubt. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. All thanks to my several years of Wikipedia experience. Apology accepted. Flyer22 (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be a person of your incomparable eminence in these hallowed servers, but even I know that Wikipedia is governed by consensus, and refusing to engage in dialog isn't the best way to achieve it. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:4DF9:1B68:4E19:9CBB (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't refuse to engage in dialogue. But if you want the WP:Last word, and it seems that you do, go ahead and have it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether the work is fringe or not. Notability is decided by the appropriate Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Whether it "is irrelevant whether the work is fringe or not," the topic of WP:Fringe came up, and, like you, I gave my opinion on it. WP:Fringe is being discussed in this WP:AfD debate. If WP:Fringe does not matter in this case, then editors should not have focused on it to the point that it draws others to comment on it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting idea - I hadn't given it a huge amount of thought, but the meaning of involuntary celibacy by definition departs pretty radically from celibacy itself. So I can see some rationale for that guideline being invoked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't initially going to put this out there, but I did start working on a potential article for involuntary celibacy itself. I'll be very honest in that Donnelly's article is a way to try to get around the previous deletion. If this is kept, I do think that involuntary celibacy should redirect to the main article for celibacy or, if my version is considered to be appropriately sourced enough for a standalone article, to the version of the article I've made. My article is at User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. However if my article isn't enough to be its own article, I would probably recommend merging it into the main article for celibacy as its own section, either "as is" or merged into one paragraph. I'd have started this on the celibacy page, but part of the issue here is that it's pretty clear that Donnelly's article is being used as a way to post about incel in general, and I think that a separate argument on incel in the celibacy page would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good stub and I hope that you will continue with it, but it does not follow that the current BLP should be kept (not that you are suggesting that). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

First of, Tokyogirl, I admire your persistance in trying to settle this case in a way satisfactory to all parties involved. However I have a few problem with this, and these are the following:

The content was deemed unfit to have its own article in a previous AfD discussion. It was determined that the article's content, in slimmed down form, was to be added as a section to another article. It was furthermore determined this other article would be the article Celibacy.
The editors of the article Celibacy discussed the addition of the new content. A variety of people was unhappy over the new material being included, and several edit wars took place. Ultimately a consensus was reached and enforced by an administrator not to include the information on "incel" on the Celibacy article.
A second article was created, this time on "Denise Donnelly" as a way to bypass earlier reached consensus not to include the material. No one is saying the information cannot be anywhere in Wikipedia. However the material is, per consensus, deemed unfit for a stand-alone article and cannot be included or redirected to the Celibacy page.

One alternative I have seen mentioned was to include a mention of the "incel" phenomenon on the page for sexual frustration as it seems like a more appropriate topic for the material to be in. To create a new article with the only purpose of re-including material seems unwise, and as with a possible re-creation of the involuntary celibacy article, would go against previously agreed upon consensus. I feel to either include the article in a page like sexual frustration or to not include it at all would be, at this point, the best way to go. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly OK with the idea of that, but I am slightly worried that the version I've written is being judged by the previous version that was up for AfD, which was- to put it bluntly- terribly written and sourced. I'm also slightly concerned about the different versions of the term, as the newest usage of the term isn't exactly the same as the previous usages. It's close in some ways, but not entirely similar- and there is some coverage of this. However I've replied in more detail at Talk:Celibacy#Article_workup, so I don't want to post overly much here as opposed to the section at Celibacy's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated above, see what I stated here about Tokyogirl79's very acceptable version of an Involuntary celibacy article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because although the subject is clearly important in her field, the guidelines for WP:PROF etc. are just indications of who is likely to be notable: the only real test is, has this person been the primary focus of non-trivial independent sources? And the answer here appears to be: no. All the sources discuss her work, for sure, but they reference her without being biographical. A hundred namechecks do not establish notability any better than one does. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not correct here: WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." It is however true that "exceptions may exist" DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GS h-index of 11 is insufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1 per Xxanthippe who said it best. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: @Xxanthippe: which WP:PROF are you reading? I see this: Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others. It also specifically cautions against using GS for h-index assessment. Certainly C1 does not provide any quantitative minimum h index. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GS has improved considerable since that was written. Why don't you produce data from another database, such as Web of Knowledge? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Because I chose to base my !vote on our notability criteria instead. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability criterion? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly. And not to mention involuntary celibacy is patent nonsense. I have to agree with Flyer22 on that. Who is involuntarily celibate outside those unfortunates in deep comas and the castrated? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: the ones I cited in my !vote. @SW3 5DL: that is wholly irrelevant in a deletion discussion about a biography. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policies you cited in your vote were WP:Prof#C1, which other editors agree is failed, and a single interview. Remember multiple sources are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@VQuakr: it goes to notability. If this were truly an academic discipline, there would be volumes out there. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: writes Measures of citability such as the h-index, ... should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted. @Xxanthippe: responds with GS has improved considerable since that was written. Why don't you produce data from another database, such as Web of Knowledge -- I am sure that consensus can change on this issue, but the process of determining consensus has not. If Xx wants to see if consensus has changed on this topic, a notice/request for discussion should take place on WP:PROF. ~~If an editor wants to pick, choose, or disregard a guideline, then he or she should not be citing the guideline as something others should adhere to.~~ -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking final comment -- that was too catty as a response to an editor, @Xxanthippe:, who makes great contributions and helps the encyclopedia but which I disagree with strongly on one subject. If I'm asking him(/her?) to please stay closer to policy, I should at least stay closer to the much greater policy of Civility myself. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, but what subject is it that we disagree about "strongly"? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I've seen no evidence that she meets our criteria for notability, long list of publications notwithstanding. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've already determined that involuntary celibacy is already non-notable as a separate topic, from which it seems clear that it's not something with sufficient notability for its creator to inherit notability from it. And most of the sources currently listed in this article see to be more about involuntary celibacy than they are about Donnelly's contribution to its study, so I think the fact that they were already judged not enough for notability for that topic should be pretty persuasive here. Which is to say, if we want to argue that she's notable via WP:GNG, then I'm persuaded by the nomination argument that this is an end-run around a previous AfD and that the GNG argument doesn't work. More, I think that the attempts to re-create that article here should be scaled back so that we have an article that's actually about the subject of its title. But if that were done, we'd only have notability through WP:PROF to fall back on, and the case for that seems equally weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established.[28] OccultZone (Talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, that establishes nothing of the sort. Donnelly's name only appears in that book as a citation to back up the author's statements; there is no in-depth coverage or even a mention of the subject herself apart from that. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

myedu.com, 2.gsu.edu, qub.ac.uk. Books like Incredible Orgasms: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yesss!, What Men Want in Bed, few other sources have mentioned this person. If there is something added to the article where the source is person herself, you can remove it. OccultZone (Talk) 13:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the slightest idea on how to parse that. You stated "notability has been established", and gave a link to a book as proof. I refuted that as a book of citations, which does not satisfy WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dennis Brown added, article is nicely written. Content includes reliable sources, may pass GNG someday. OccultZone (Talk) 14:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. I haven't been a party to any of the drama surrounding the article, and not really wanting to. Simply looking at the article and sourcing in an objective manner, there seems to be adequate justification to keep the article on its own merits. Passes GNG, even if barely. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. This topic appears to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMICS as this person and their theory has received non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as well has been cited in multiple academic publications. Just because this person advocates a fringe theory that you or many people might disagree with, that doesn't negate our own guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. The article is well sourced and meets WP:NOTABILITY. ScienceApe (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Currently a separate disscussion recreating same content, at Celibacy at Article workup[edit]

Talk:Celibacy#Article workup I do not agree that articles with same content should be re-created and discussed while this disscussion is happening. And YES, it belongs HERE.

Sorry to say but all this discussion starts to look as much original research to me, at Talk:Celibacy#Article workup . It is NOT up to uss to define things, but to stick to references. And as said before, this has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. And the Donnely article looks like it is going to be deleted and what is happening here goes again against broader community consensus, can't we just drop the thing? I AM TIRED about all these re-creation attempts, move THIS conversation where it belongs, to the content discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be, because it belongs to THIS topic, and it is HERE the community discuss it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, my reason for reverting you on adding the entire Talk:Celibacy#Article workup discussion here was/is valid. Before you added that, and before making this new subsection here on it, we already linked to that discussion above, a discussion that is separate from (but connected to) the Denise Donnelly WP:AfD; if editors want to join that discussion, they obviously can. But this WP:AfD is primarily about whether or not Denise Donnelly is WP:Notable, or it should be primarily about that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 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. A banned sock's creation of this AFD notwithstanding, the consensus here is clearly for the preservation of an article on Hawaiian cuisine that was native to the islands prior to the influence of European contact and Asian immigration (which this article currently plans to do). The naming situation, as well as other content specific issues, can be handled in a more appropriate location than this forum. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native cuisine of Hawaii[edit]

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

This subject has been repeatedly redirected to the article Cuisine of Hawaii. The actual title should be Native cuisine of Hawaii, but that page is currently a redirect. Can we please get community input on how best to handle the subject. There is also a debate about whether it should only cover Native Hawaiian cuisine before the arrival of Captain Cook and exclude all aspects of Native Hawaiian cuisine as related to adaptations to colonization, immigration, the development of plate lunches featuring Hawaiian dishes, Hawaii regional cuisine, Sam Choy and aspects of contemporary "Native Hawaiian cuisine". Thanks for suggestions and input. Please allow this discussion to run the full 7 days so we can get as much input as possible into what has been a contentious dispute. A recent AfD was closed as speedy keep, but the article was moved to my userspace and Native Hawaiian cuisine redirected to Cuisine of Hawaii. Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted the current article is in a gutted condition and the fuller version can be seen here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this is the first time in nearly five years of editing and commenting on thousands of AfDs that I have participated in two on the same article in a single day. And I might be the editor responsible for the "gutted condition" of the article, since I set out to try to improve it, and my first step was to remove the content that didn't have to do with the food supply and cuisine of the native Hawaiians in the 1200 years or so before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. To me, that is the logical point of demarcation between this article which in my view should be about the cuisine of an isolated, homogeneous culture and another article about the cuisine of a multicultural society engaged in world trade. Clearly, this topic is related to Cuisine of Hawaii, and is a fork, but I think a justified one. The historical shift I've described is, to me, the only one that justifies having two broad articles about Hawaiian cuisine. Otherwise, let's just have one, arranged roughly in chronological order. But if we are to have two articles, then discussion of beef, salmon, rice and all the other foods imported by cultures other than the Polynesian settlers belongs instead in Cuisine of Hawaii. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sam Choy is half Chinese and a quarter German, and certainly exemplifies Cuisine of Hawaii. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This does not seem to be a deletion discussion. Redirects for discussion might be a better place. Andrew (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but it should still be discussed as an AfD. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draftify into the draft namespace or userfy into a sandbox until the article is ready for mainspace. The article under discussion is a duplicate, redundant fork of cuisine of Hawaii. The majority of the content was copied wholesale, including the citations, from a section about pre-contact Hawaii. If that material grows too large, it should be split out into a new article. The sources use "Native cuisine" to specifically refer to Hawaiian food before 1778, a Polynesian, pre-contact diet. Contrary to what the nominator has claimed, there is no debate on this, and more importantly, the nominator has no sources supporting such a debate. If we were to write a new article about contemporary "Native Hawaiian cuisine" today, how would it differ from the cuisine of Hawaii article? The nominator proposes a POV fork that isn't supported by the sources currently in use. This is why I strongly recommend moving this fork into draft or user space for the nominator to work on. Perhaps if he does the research, he will find actual sources on the topic, which would be great for Wikipedia. The cuisine of Hawaii article follows the sources which describes five different food epochs, from the antecedents of 1) Ancient Hawaiian food, to the arrival of 2) European, American, missionary, and whaler cuisine, to the introduction of 3) ethnic food by plantation immigrants, to the development of 4) local food by regional communities on different islands, to the creation of 5) Hawaii Regional Cuisine by chefs and restaurateurs. One of these epochs refers solely to "Native Hawaiian cuisine", whereas the four subsequent eras combine into different types of cuisine. As for what "contemporary" Native Hawaiians eat, they will of course, draw upon 1, but are more likely to eat regularly from 2, 3, and 4, making the general "cuisine of Hawaii" parent article more relevant in the contemporary era. As a Hawaii resident and Wikipedian who writes about Hawaii, I would very much like for there to be more content about Native Hawaiians. But we have to actually read the sources and write from them; we can't make stuff up and copy and paste from one article to the next simply because we have a strong POV. The sources are clear that the "Native cuisine of Hawaii" refers to the ancient, traditional diet of pre-contact Hawaiians. To write about what Native Hawaiians eat today, one would first have to find those sources. Since the current article does not accurately reflect the scope and focus that is intended, it should not remain in mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have changed my "draftify or userfy" objection to a "delete" up above after participating in this new discussion with the nominator. As I originally suspected several days ago (although I had no evidence until now), the nominator has confused the culinary and food history of Hawaii with a topic on nutrition and obesity. As I informed the nominator, this is a worthy and valid topic, and should be discussed both in cuisine of Hawaii and in a new article yet to be created in the category of Indigenous health. However, this article under discussion is not that article. I would ask that the user request the assistance of projects related to indigenous people, nutrition and medicine to complete this task. They are welcome to work on such an article in draft space, a sandbox, or even in mainspace, but this is not that article. The first thing the nominator has to do is find reliable sources. The nominator has already identified a list of potential sources to use in a non-RS that cites them. But again, the nominator has to do the hard work to research, read, and write the article. Of course, I have no objection to a nutrition or health section in the "Cuisine of Hawaii" article if the nominator is interested in adding it. I really think we need one. However, the nominator must make the effort to find the reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't get me wrong, I think that there should probably be two articles, one of contemporary cuisine, and one of traditional (pre-contact is the correct term I think, but I don't know for sure). The problem is this article is a complete disaster as-is, and I don't think it is salvageable. The article is entirely copy-and-paste from other sources within Wikipedia (without the proper attribution), and if you doubt this, look at the citations. For example Laudan 1996, p. 216., Nenes 2007, p. 478., where do they reference to? Why the reference to the entries at the bottom of in Cuisine of Hawaii, naturally. Or there is this duplication detector report. In fact this article could almost be speedy deleted under A10 ( Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic), and is was on the borderline of G7 (Author requests deletion), ~~in fact~~ yesterday when the nominator nominated his own article for deletion the first time~~, it probably was~~. If there is to be an article on the traditional, pre-contact cuisine of Hawaii, that is great, but this is the wrong way to go about it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think bots usually take care of that citaion issue but there has been so much gamesmanship by Viriditas moving this article around and redirecting it (including even after it was speedily kept in an admin closure by you) that the bots got lost. That's one of the reasons that the kinds of disruptions engaged in by Viriditas should have brought to a stop by admin intervention long ago. I also think it's funny that you said I created the article, then I pointed out to you that I restored it from a redirect and expanded it, and now you say I created and want it deleted. Suggesting something you know is not true is completely dishonest. I believe lying is a clear policy violation? Please strike your comments. I believe the article should be kept, obviously, and that it should cover Native Hawaiian cuisine comprehensively. Because the ridiculous disruption by Viriditas has been never ending I thought it best to get very clear community consensus on the issue so we can move forward. Your clouding of the issues, distortions, and contradictory statements are sad. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bots cannot fix references that are not there. And I say that you created the article because you are the first author on the page. See. I know you say you are not up on the intricacies of Wikipedia, but I am sure you have figured out how to check the history of an article, since you have been editing under this account since 2011. So no, I will not strike my comments. As for disruption, pot, please meet kettle. As for my inappropriate close, I have told you the venue you are free to report my outlandish behavour at. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong that bots cannot fix references. It would not surprise me if the article history got messed up in all the disruptive moves and redirects that Viriditas has engaged in. He and I have both told you that I restored the article from beneath a redirect and expanded it. If you want to engage in some kind of weird denialism I don't know how I can help you, but your contributions and administrative actions so far have been totally unhelpful and wacky. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be confused about the article history. There have been so many moves, redirects, afds and other nonsense I'm having trouble keeping track of it all. I apologize. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would not have happened if you had not copied and forked an article on the cuisine of Hawaii in an attempt to write about the health and nutrition of Native Hawaiians, which I'm sure, everyone here supports. What you need to understand is that the more you are open about what you are trying to do and the more you discuss it, the more support you will receive. In any case, bots cannot add references from one article to another. And none of the material you've added is relevant to a discussion about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition. As I said above, it's about Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, and by trying to shoehorn it into another toipc, you're engaging in synthesis and original research. Find the sources about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition and use those to write an article. Don't copy material from other articles about topics that have nothing to do with the one you are writing about. The sources must cover the subject you wish to write about. Please read WP:SYN for more guidance. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the question of attribution, there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which calls for "at least" mention in an edit summary if/when text has been copied from another Wikipedia article. Whatever happened here could/should be remedied by adding to the attribution in the article somehow, and/or giving credit on the Talk page. I am not sure how exactly this is to be done, but I am sure there must be a way that attribution (for other Wikipedia article authors) can be provided properly after the fact.

I sympathize with Candleabracadabra that authorship in the article was in fact confused by the article being moved and renamed and recreated by a copy-paste, and so on, and IMHO the way this worked out is not C's fault. Reasonable editors should be able to agree that there is a reasonable topic here, and then to work together to get the article and its attribution into shape to be a reasonable treatment. It is also okay for an article to be started and left imperfect, but with notes at the Talk page about what needs to be done before the article can be deemed "finished" or "Good"-worthy. --do ncr am 19:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "confusion" about the authorship. Candleabracadabra didn't write anything. BorgQueen, myself and several other editors did the research, read the books, papers, and articles, and wrote the content. Candleabracadabra forked and copyied the cuisine of Hawaii article for no reason other than to add image galleries against the MOS when he was repeatedly reverted in the original article. Then he made up all sorts of excuses claiming he was interested in Native Hawaiian food, their health and nutrition, etc. And while those are all valid topics, we already have a Culture of Hawaii article. It's a stub waiting to be expanded. And to see how we write such articles and talk about native cuisine, look at a similar article like Culture of Tonga. Candleabracadabra did not "start" any new topic, nor has he directly responded to concerns expressed about this copy and paste job. That's why I moved it into draft space and user space. From the very beginning, this was a disruptive attempt to add image galleries that were removed from the parent article, not to start a new article. So, I think your sympathy is misplaced here. You should be sympathizing with all of the editors who have had to waste their time trying to cleanup this mess. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what the issue is here. I don't agree with Kelapstick on a few points. First, this article does not meet the standards for a G7 deletion even if the author requested it because they no longer are the only significant contributor. "Pre-contact" is only the correct term if that is the point in which you want to hinge the timeline of the article. I don't know if that is the best sectioning or not, but it is merely where the other article wishes to make their distinction. As for whether or not the article could be speedy deleted as duplicating another topic, I believe at this point the two articles demonstrate enough of a difference to exists independently of each other, but links to either artice from the other seems appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is one of content forking and original research. Per this discussion the user is attempting to write about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition. However, the sources the user has copied from the cuisine of Hawaii article do not discuss that topic. That content is specifically about Ancient Hawaiian food in the pre-contact era. Some other sources the user has added are about different types of cuisine in Hawaii. There are sources on and offline about Native Hawaiian health and nutrition, however, and Wikipedia covers such topics under the categories of "race and health" and "Indigenous health". But the user must find reliable sources about the topic to write such an article. He cannot just copy and paste content and sources from other articles about different subjects and create a new subject. There is a competency issue here. For example, I asked the user to find a single reliable source for me to look at so I could help. The user responded with a user-generated blog posting. Now, I understand that the user is trying, but they need to either work in draft space or in a sandbox until they figure out how to edit. The worst part is that they haven't read any of the source material they keep copying over to this new article. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes Mark, I agree that as it is now it is not eligible for G7, however when it was originally nominated for deletion (for the first time) here he was the only substantial editor to the article. That was my mistake in my comment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mark, you wrote, "I believe at this point the two articles demonstrate enough of a difference to exists independently of each other". How is that possible when the material was copy and pasted without any significant changes? What is different about the two articles? While I agree that we could have a separate article on Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, there is no evidence that the nominator intends to expand that topic. What he is trying to do is write about the health and nutrition of Native Hawaiians, but using content from the cuisine of Hawaii article that is about Ancient Hawaii. I just don't see any difference at this point, nor has the nominator added any reliable sources like he has been asked to do. All he did was copy the sources and content. So, we have a duplicate, redundant fork for no purpose. Why does this separate article continue to exist? Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my opinion as an uninvolved editor but, this is how I see the two subjects without even looking at the articles. There is the basic "Cuisine of Hawaii that would be your restaurant foods. Everything from the Hawaiian themed Tiki Bars and restaurants of the 40s, 50s 60s and 70s to the newer fusion foods and high end artistic offerings of the newer trends. I think the history should reflect that. In this article, Native cuisine of Hawaii I imaging it would be about poi and its base could well be from the first article but expand on even the poi section. Look...I am new to much of this so I don't want to come across "holier than thou" but, there is so much to just pois that i don't think is covered. Like the fact of how a traditional native Hawaiian plot of land would be used to grow and raise their own food. Tarro patches and fish ponds were actively encouraged King Kamehameha I by tending his own taro patch and fish ponds. So, just from my own look I think there is room for massive expansion and that this article could serve to, at the very least, expand on the real native preferences and I don't feel any shame in including spam. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Mark. The problem is, our food and cuisine articles are not about restaurant foods. Please take a moment to look at our GA/FA articles on this subject (which I admit are in terrible shape as the Food and drink project does not seem to work on them that much). Culinary and food history articles focus on the history of the cuisines, notable dishes, ingredients, preparation, and variations. Sometimes they discuss restaurants, but rarely. In terms of the cuisine of Hawaii, it is a very small part of the topic, and appears to have been added without sources recently. In the sources about the cuisine of Hawaii that I've read, restaurants played a small role in popularizing local dishes, but this is more of an illustration of a topic rather than its core. "Hawaiian themed Tiki bars and restaurants" don't seem to have much to do with the topic, and HRC fusion cuisine only became popular in the 1990s. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Native cuisine of Hawaii" and the sources don't use it. That's an artificial name that the nominator chose when the redirect prevented him from using his preferred title, "Native Hawaiian cuisine". If you take a look at our culture articles, you'll find that they usually discus the cuisine as a subtopic. When the topic is too large, it gets split out. We have a stub on Culture of Hawaii waiting to be expanded, but the nominator isn't the least bit interested. For comparison, look at the structure of articles like Culture of Tonga, Culture of Samoa, and Oceanic cuisine. I think you'll find that the cuisine of Hawaii article is accurate and topical per the reliable sources and best practice on Wikipedia. "Native Hawaiian cuisine" refers to Polynesian and Oceanian cuisine that was brought to Hawaii in the pre-contact period before 1778. After that time, the numbers of Native Hawaiians dwindled, and their people were forced into a diaspora. This was especially true after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the 1890s and its acquisition as a territory and later, as a state. There are now less than 20% of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii. The question then becomes, which culture and cuisine are you talking about? You mention "Spam" up above, but that is most assuredly not classified as Native Hawaiian cuisine, and was only introduced during WWII meat rationing. Even the nominator has acknowledged that these "foreign" food items are killing Native Hawaiians because of their poor nutritional value. So, for me at least, you are talking about cuisine of Hawaii, not Native Hawaiian cuisine, also known as "Ancient Hawaiian cuisine", "Polynesian cuisine", or "Oceanian cuisine". I think we do need expansion on the "Culture of Hawaii" article, and it can discuss some of these things there. But if we are talking about traditional or ancient Hawaiian culture prior to first contact, that's another subject. I can recommend some good sources if you are interested. There is also literature published by the Native Hawaiian sovereignty and resistance movements that can point you in the right direction. Right now, however, this "Native cuisine of Hawaii" article is sourced to books and articles about pre-contact Hawaii. If you want to focus on the culture of Hawaii and cuisine specific to Native Hawaiians, you (or someone else) is going to have to do the research. There are quite a number of articles about the dietary impacts of the western diet on Native Hawaiian, but I'm not all that aware of how their diet differs from the foods described in the parent cuisine article. Expansion of specific foods, such as poi. should probably take place on those pages. Otherwise, when you are talking about "massive expansion", what you are really talking about is an expansion of a cultural topic, not a cuisine topic. Perhaps a Culture of Native Hawaiians topic would allow you to be more inclusive rather than a culture of Hawaii article? I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current sources in place support the expansion of a pre-contact cuisine article, but not much more than that. I suppose it could be called "Native Hawaiian cuisine", but it would have to focus on cultural practices of Native Hawaiians alone, and it would have to use literature about Native Hawaiians. Because of the diaspora, that's going to be extremely hard, but perhaps you could find direction in some of the sovereignty and resistance literature, as well as in the studies being conducted in various universities about Native Hawaiian diet, nutrition, and health. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am confused by some history of article names and moves, including some to userspace and back, and some discussion at Talk pages that lays out conflict among editors. However, my general understanding is that Candleabracadabra believes there is a valid topic here (for native, pre-contact food vs. modern Hawaiian food in Hawaii and/or popular as "Hawaiian" elsewhere), and that several editors agree. I agree too; it is a notable topic.

Further, my general understanding also is that Candleabracadabra nominated this for deletion as a way of calling for general discussion of notability by the community. On the one hand, I don't like "fake AFDs" where the nominator is not really wanting a topic to be deleted. It wastes everyone's time, and can seem to be an attempt to pre-empt any later, possibly legitimate community concern. On the other hand, I sympathize with opening a community discussion to avoid notability being dictated by an administrator's subjective decision that a draft article was not yet worthy enough, reflected by the admin's userfying the page (later note: it was a non-admin editor who did the userfying here, i am corrected). I sympathize with C's effort to call for a community discussion instead. I don't like any ~~admin~~admin or other editor userfying an experienced editor's work, other than after a community discussion. (That happened to me in the past and seemed truly awful in terms of the destruction of community and individuals' willingness to edit that it caused; I would support a guideline or policy discussion to restrict "userfications" being done unilaterally). So, I don't like to see this as a fake AFD, and I hope not to see more of these, but I support this one-time usage of the AFD system this way, and I support "Keep" for this article. --do ncr am 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record doncram, the article was not userfied by an administrator. I believe I am the only editor who has taken any administrative action on this page, and that was only to delete a misplaced redirect during a page move, and to move a page out of userspace and into article space, over top of a copy/paste move. I also closed the previous AfD, however since that was a speedy keep, it could have been done by any editor, not just an administrator. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a summary of all the actions taken on the articles on Drmies talk page and User_talk:Viriditas#Actions_on_Hawaiian_cuisine_articles.. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kelapstick, for replying and for having provided that summary of actions. I had already seen another copy of that summary and had appreciated your compiling it. I was mistaken in thinking that there were administrator-only actions taken (apparently there were no userfication moves that were done without leaving a redirect behind, which only an admin can do). IMHO, strong action of userfication taken by an editor without using administrator tools, with followup changes to the redirects left behind, seems similarly disruptive, but is not quite as bad as being done with use of admin-only tools. Thank you for clarifying. --do ncr am 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have left a note on Viriditas talk page, telling him that at a minimum the second userfication was offside, as well as redirect after the AfD was closed as speedy keep. I do take blame for not immediately reversing it when I saw the move, and not discussing it with him immediately. It is something I should have done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we keep the article, I suggest it be renamed Native Hawaiian foods so that it is a slightly broader term and takes into account that the ancient Hawaiians didn't really have "cuisine" by today's standards....although Kalua pork is a good argument against that opinion, but for me the simplification is appropriate here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the title, as long as the non-Native Hawaiian food content and sources are removed. Also, we've got an issue with overlap on articles such as list of Hawaiian foods. And, it should not be allowed to turn into another wild image gallery like the nominator created. Finally, this could have real potential for including ethnobotanical content as well, so you may want to think more about the title. "Native Hawaiian plants and foods" would be more inclusive of the wider topic and you would double the number of sources available. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Native Hawaiian cuisine is the best title. Cuisines include aspects of culture. It is also concise, clear, and consistent with naming conventions on Wikipedia. I have seen a couple of editors suggest an article on Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, but I think this can be covered as part of this article for now and I don't see a need to split off a separate article focusing solely on pre-Western contact periods. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Unlike you, I have actually read the sources about Native Hawaiian food and I am familiar with the content, having written some of it. There is no extant "cuisine". Hawaiian-themed restaurants offer what is known as "local food", a melange of pre-contact, Ancient (or traditional) Hawaiian food, combined with post-contact and plantation food. "Native Hawaiian food" is far more accurate, although even that article topic is suspect. What we do know is that there are sources about Ancient Hawaiian food. In the contemporary era, we have sources about how the contemporary Native Hawaiian diet is impacting their health. What you have done is purposefully copy and paste material from an article about the cuisine of Hawaii into a new article for the sole purpose of creating image galleries against MOS:IMAGES. You were told not to do this on the original parent article so you created a new, forked article with the same content to engage in the same disruption. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It does need expansion, but this is a notable topic. A native cuisine of Hawaii is different than just a cuisine of Hawaii (which can be McDonald's, considering that Hawaii is part of the fast-food-happy US), so these two should be two separate articles. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a valid topic and should be kept. I would like to see it follow the naming guidelines for cuisine though, Native Hawaiian cuisine. e.g. Native American cuisine and others. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Native American cuisine is a mostly unsourced article (definitely not B-class). I would not like to see any of our articles use that topic as a "model". Furthermore, Native Americans have special rights and privileges that Native Hawaiians do not (for example, see the proposed Akaka Bill) so your analogy doesn't work. Finally, your concern with "naming guidelines" over and above article content and accuracy is most distressing. This would go a long way to explaining why the Food and Drink project rarely produces quality content. "Naming guidelines" are meant to guide us, they are not meant to rule us. And they most certainly should not be used to distort or imply a scope that the subject doesn't have. For the most part, the article "Native American cuisine" is about food not cuisine. To use this poorly sourced article as an "example" for others to follow is quite sad, but telling. No, I'm sorry, we should not degrade the quality of our content and our overall accuracy in the way you suggest. You have simply offered no good reason to fork this content into another article. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really should learn to not talk to people like that - Insulting the members of the F&D Project and the project is unnecessary. Naming guidelines are there to help us ensure that we have continuity and standards. You don't like the first example I provided, lets go with French cuisine, Italian cuisine, Indian cuisine or any of the other cuisine articles that are of high quality. Too many times I have seen pathetic edit wars over national or regional cuisines because a one contributor or another feels that other editors have no right to edit articles involving their national/cultural cuisine. Macedonian cuisine, Korean cuisine, Japanese cuisine etc have all been the subjects of edit wars over disputes such as this. That is why I generally stay out of these articles, I prefer not to get involved in the chest thumping antics of culture warriors. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly some overlap, but this looks like a distinct and valid topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic which meets standards for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Dolovis (talk) 20:54, 27 May 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 Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Flavor[edit]

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

Since a user objected to the PROD on this article, I am now bringing it to AfD. This group fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. The AllMusic ref just contains a simple paragraph, and the TV.com ref only gives them one brief passing mention on a cast list. Should be deleted as there is nothing to redirect to. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – notability has not been established. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strikethrough above, due to much-improved sourcing since the comment was made. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now notable due to major expansion - the band has had hit singles on the Billboard Hot 100 (as well as other Billboard charts) which easily meets WP:BAND; highest charting single on the Hot 100 is "Heaven" which reached #27. The AllMusic ref is reliable and is used as a source for the article's content; the TV.com ref is to support the claim they were featured on Beverly Hills 90210 which clearly lists them on the cast list, that's all that needs to be proven. Article now well-sourced and notable. -Hiddenstranger (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic most certainly is reliable, but the biography they give on their group is rather brief. As for the other references you added, the Billboard chart is the same page used five times. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AllMusic bio covers the main basic details which should be included in any band article - when and how they formed, where they hail from, history of the band, their discography plus any notable chart hits. It doesn't matter if one ref is cited 5 times to the same source, that source is just to prove the peak chart positions on the Billboard Hot 100 for each of those singles. Peak positions on the other Billboard charts are also included and sourced. Out of all the criteria at WP:BAND, the band now meets at least five of them. One is the band's chart hits on the Hot 100 which was missing prior to the significant changes; the article is now notable. External links about the band have also been added. Hiddenstranger (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two major label albums, several hit records. Easily passes WP:NMUSIC and pretty clearly a topic that should be covered here. --Michig (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD due to article now having sufficient coverage for notability criteria. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:15, 19 May 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 00:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logiks (framework)[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotional article about non-notable software created by a WP:COI editor. Recreated after a previous speedy deletion. I was unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article containing multiple peacock terms, contributed by a WP:SPA account. Multiple searches are turning up no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. "we intend to manage wikipedia's Logiks page" makes me unlikely to give any sort of benefit of the doubt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:B2B. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MedicAnimal[edit]

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

Non-notable business. Wikipedia is not a business directory the panda ₯’ 23:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I feel that these sources are just sufficient to meet CORP: [29] [30] [31]. SmartSE (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would claim that notability is not asserted. The references are promotional, and hence in my view not uninvolved third-party material.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its crap really, but they have the refs. Szzuk (talk) 17:04, 16 May 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) 02:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a strong case, but sufficient sources to meet notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:35, 19 May 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let the Music Stop[edit]

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

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

Appears to be non-notable music. Only around 50 Google hits, including no substantive coverage, only catalog listings, track listings, sales listings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am adding to this deletion discussion the article Don't Let The Music Stop (note different capitalisation), which is about a single, and has even less claim to notability than Don't Let the Music Stop. I don't know whether the article on the album should be deleted or not, but if it is deleted then the article on the single should go too. (Clearly, if they are both kept, the titles will have to be changed, as a mere difference in capitalisation of "the" is not a sufficiently clear disambiguation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not finding very much either; just a short review from a 1977 issue of Billboard. If no other offline sources turn up, I recommend a redirect to Larry Santos. Gongshow talk 02:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article fails WP:NMUSIC. I find no evidence of significant coverage. Nor even any assertion of notability. And the "Music Video" which is described and externally linked appears to be a recent YouTube creation with no evidence that it was an actual "official music video" from 1977. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 20 May 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. No sources were offered beyond catalog listings. The artist page Larry Santos may be expanded with any useful and relevant information if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Arriva (live album)[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability for this album. Google, in particular, has only 14 hits for "viva arriba" "larry santos", none of them more than catalog listings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [32], there are probably many sources, and this album is not latest so you can wait till the editor add some references. OccultZone (Talk) 01:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "none of them more than catalog listings". The goal when notability is challenged is to demonstrate that there are sources, not to speculate that they exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept (and I'm not convinced it should be, as I can find no other indications of notability beyond the Allmusic write-up), it should be moved to Viva Arriva, which redirects to Larry Santos. Gongshow talk 02:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment I misspelled the title, as you can see above, in my Google search. When I used "arriva" with a "v" I got, well 209 hits, though still seemingly no more than listings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as per WP:NMUSIC. Useful info can be put into artist page. Created by block-evading sock the panda ₯’ 09:30, 23 May 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 Kursk submarine disaster. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Tylik[edit]

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

Non-notable independently of the Kursk submarine disaster and has since been a low-profile individual (WP:NTEMP). eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 12 May 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, czar ♔ 01:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like a BLP-1E to me. I think the most notable aspects can certainly be included in the parent subject. Not sure on a redirect. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to disaster article. I agree with Mon Prince. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:29, 19 May 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 00:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpareet Bains[edit]

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

WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR are not met. Almost all the mentions I can find in factiva are in low-quality tabloid sources (Metro, Daily Express, The Sun etc. ) and about his 'superfood' recipes which supposedly stop you falling ill, getting cancer and cure insomnia. I can't find any substantial coverage about him in high-quality sources. Not that it makes a difference to notability, but the article was also written by his PR agency: [33]. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep I noticed this on user:Smartse's Talk page. I see a story in the Telegraph and another here that should meet the bare minimum threshold for notability. Also, nutrition that reduces someone's risk of cancer is an actual thing. WebMD has a page on it here. CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a better understanding of the issue after reading this. The PR agency that wrote these articles and secured the media coverage used as citations specializes in writing feature stories and shopping them around to publications that publish them as-is under their own byline. So articles that appear to be independent, are actually written by the article-subject's own paid staff. That presents an interesting problem as far as being independent-enough to meet GNG standards. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 16 May 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, czar ♔ 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. yes he hosted a TV show but it was on a minor tv channel. Most of the sources merely confirm biographical details. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Author, WP:BIO. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWW Trilogy[edit]

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

Non-notable book trilogy. Note that the referenced Slate article is about sentinence and the trilogy is used as a foil for developing the theme of AI sentinence; it's not "a review or non-trivial coverage". Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly non-notable:

-- Mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information in the trilogy stub and the two sequel stubs is in the lead paragraph of Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel), our article about the first book. --all but the link to that Slate article.

It's simply "Robert J. Sawyer's “WWW” trilogy" in Slate but the series is catalogued as "WWW Trilogy" at ISFDB (WWW Trilogy series listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database). So that's a reasonable pagename to use for coverage of the whole. Nevertheless I suggest redirect the three stubs to the Wake article. At least for now that seems to be a good place under a heading such as Sequels, Series, or Trilogy.

FYI the trilogy stub is 3 years old, the two sequel stubs 1 year. --P64 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still working on it, but so far this looks to be a keep for all of them from my end. I'm finding quite a few reviews and articles on the series via a GS and I haven't even hit the Highbeam, BingNews, and JSTOR type sources yet. It looks like the first book also got an Aurora Award as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I've fleshed out all of the articles here and each book has multiple reviews, which allows them to pass WP:NBOOK fairly easily. I've also found quite a bit about the series as a whole, so I've kept that information on the main page for the series since it's a bit more easy to post it there than to repeat the same information on each individual page. We could probably include some of the information on Wake's entry to the main page, as it has info about the themes and so on, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the series. In any case, notability has now been established. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside? WP:NCBK#Standard disambiguation is clear to me that we avoid Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel) in favor of Wake (Sawyer novel), or Wake (WWW trilogy) or even Wake (WWW) if "WWW" is (very) well known. Certainly not "WWW" in this case; I guess "Sawyer novel".

If we do retain four pages for the Sawyer series, then Wonder (novel) should be moved. As I understand it, rename both that and Wonder (R.J. Palacio novel) to use "Sawyer novel" and "Palacio novel". --P64 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I visited and confirmed or corrected the three disambiguation pages and all "What links here" from Article space--to the trilogy article and two sequel articles only. Wake and Sawyer are the only articles that link to those last three pages. --P64 (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, following improvements by User:Tokyogirl79. However, even before the improvements, I would probably have been looking to keep either the Wake or the series article. I personally think Sawyer rather second-rate, but he consistently gets enough favourable critical attention to make any of his novels likely, though not certain, to be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Further, while the Hugo Award nomination probably does not automatically make Wake notable, Hugo-nominated novels are subject to a lot of critical attention within the science fiction field - enough, in fact, that I would be surprised if any Hugo-nominated novel could not be shown to be notable. In the case of Wake (and indeed the other novels here), User:Tokyogirl79 has now in fact demonstrated notability. (By the way, I have corrected one bit of User:Tokyogirl79's work - the award won by Wake was in fact the Prix Aurora Award, which is commonly informally referred to in English just as the Aurora Award.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge individual book articles into trilogy article, unless sufficient work can be done to make the books' articles worthwhile alone. Radagast (talk) 18:52, 11 May 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 21:06, 11 May 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, czar ♔ 01:12, 19 May 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) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 12-13.3 inch subnotebooks[edit]

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

Comparison of individual products/models. Wikipedia is not a catalog. This is an article that is perpetually out of date (somewhat relevant is WP:RECENT). An encyclopedia shouldn't duplicate a consumer electronics retailer's product comparison tool. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it makes no justification for the 12"-13.3" size range (subnotebook does not declare such a class). Finally, if the point of the list is not to list current models but all 12" - 13.3" subnotebook models, then the problem is much more clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that (part of) the list may already be a little out of date. However, many devices can still be attained from 2nd hand websites. The reason the article was made is not so much to list the commercial devices, but to allow people to compare these devices and pick the best (cheapest) option for them so that they can attain useful information trough it (ie via wikipedia). It wasn't made to compare the commercial devices an sich. KVDP (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to allow people to compare these devices and pick the best (cheapest) option for them so that they can attain useful information trough it (ie via wikipedia) -- specifically violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a buying guide or tool for price shopping. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inherently non-notable topic. A list of presently available 13.3 inch subnotebooks will continually be out of date. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 11 May 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 20:13, 11 May 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, czar ♔ 01:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently out of scope, impossible to maintain and keep current (in fact it looks like it's already out of date). No way this could reasonably be maintained and it's of no encyclopedic value even if it were. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#INFO Secret ^account 11:55, 20 May 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 00:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Matson[edit]

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

Article about an Australian artist, sourced only to her website since the outset in 2007. Seems to have been written by a relative. The list of awards seem to be fairly minor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The group show prizes do not meet WP:ARTIST notability criteria, and multiple searches are turning up nothing beyond primary-source pages. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ARTIST. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 26 May 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 00:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Alger[edit]

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

Article about an author/illustrator that has been unsourced since 2010. Though it says her book, Bertie, has been widely acclaimed I can't see a shred of evidence anywhere to support this claim. I can't even find a website for her or an online CV. Lacks proof, let alone notability. Sionk (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should speedily delete it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article makes a claim of notability (even though it's unproven) I don't think it meets any SD criteria. There's a slim possibility of non-internet coverage for a 1996 book, but I remain very sceptical. Sionk (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In point of fact the article is not entirely unreferenced, although the refs don't show as they are inlines. However all these prove that the claims to have illustrated the titles are valid. The National Library of Australia has [28 hits], some of which are duplicates. Does not seem to be a huge body of work, and can find no reliable third-party references. I know that children's book illustrators don't get a lot of attention in general, but I can't see that this one is in any way notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her most acclaimed book is in 43 libraries on World Cat. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everybody. No notability beyond simply existing and doing a job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reflection on her talent or ability, but I'm not seeing how she meets any of the notability criteria for creative professionals. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

[1] Standaad.be

[2] Vandaag.be

[3] Goedgevoel.be

[4] Gva.be

[5] Feda.belgium.be

[6] Deredactie.be

[7] Deredactie.be

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]