Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 June	27 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent Breathing[edit]

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

Appear to be a single persons alt med idea. No evidence of wide spread acceptance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatsoever that this meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable but needs significant work if kept. Google books search yields a number of hits. This article would need a rewrite especially with regard NPOV. And no I'm not volunteering to do this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ...hum, search for "coherent breathing" on GoogleScholar [1] seems mainly to return other (scientific) usages of this page name. A relevant consideration here perhaps? 5.80.198.100 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes seems a different usage.... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising for some guy's machine. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems very much like an advertisement, almost zero independent sources as most of the references were written by the inventor. Unable to find notable independent sources. -Pax Verbum 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent verification. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we don't publish original research or non-notorious fringe theories. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Berian, etc. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious sock is obvious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Broadcasting System Africa[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this division of Turner actually exists. All the references on their website just refer to "Europe, Middle East, & Africa". Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Turner Broadcasting System Europe~~, ~~where this division of Turner seems to be hubbed from. It seems uplink takes place from there, with only ad sales offices in South Africa as the physical presence of the networks.~~ Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to speedy delete per Cyphoidbomb's observation; I knew it was iffy when almost all the external links were just 404's in sheep's clothing. Nate • (chatter) 03:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as Mummy Onochie, the article's creator, is a duck of Kosi Onochie, a user indeffed for repeated submission of garbage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2015 (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 and redirect to Sickle cell disease. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keone Penn[edit]

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

Non-notable person, known only for " the first person in the world cured of sickle cell anemia through a cord blood transplant", and therefore fails WP:1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the content somewhere, with the array of useful incoming redirects, because he does reliably seem to be the source of the nickname "Keone's law" for the legislation. If he isn't notable enough for his own article, the content ought to be mentioned somewhere within an article on Sickle cell disease or cord blood transplants. If there's nowhere else for this content and the redirects, then keep this article. PamD 16:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The important detail is that sickle cell disease was cured, and how, not the patient. At most, the person's name could get a quick mention in an article about the disease, or the treatment, but other than that, this topic does not warrant a separate article. "Keone's law" did appear to get signed into law, and with more research, there's a chance that could be deserving of an article; but I don't know much about notability precedents for state laws. -Verdatum (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and WP:BLP1E or Redirect content to article on sickle cell disease.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sickle cell disease. A reader might look up this person but there is not enough to sustain a biographical article. Jbh ^Talk 00:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. He is not notable enough for an article, despite having a state law named for him. I would have recommended a merge/redirect to Sickle cell disease, but he and his cure are not mentioned there, and I wasn't able to add anything - because in a search I could find no source about his cure that would meet WP:MEDRS, as would be required for that article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This seems kind of significant, so please give me an hour or so to dig up WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and develop three or four sourced sentences at Sickle-cell_disease#Research. Lockley (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eltjo Haselhoff. Been up 2 weeks and I really don't see the point in dragging this on so redirect it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Magic[edit]

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

Not enougn coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Jbh ^Talk 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eltjo Haselhoff, which already has the content. Per WP:NALBUMS, regarding articles on albums, singles or other recordings, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." Source searches did not provide enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2015 (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 withdrawn by nominator. slakr^\ talk / 13:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per user request, also it's an A7 candidate. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Companies[edit]

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

CSD and Prod removed by secondary editor (most likely a sock of the creator, which was a corporate account). Non-notable company, company does not appear to meet WP:PROD. May be a candidate for CSD-A7 Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/Snow Article is absolutely a candidate for A7. I'm attempting to reach out to the author(s) on the talk page. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7, otherwise Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look guys I apologize but this is silly just go ahead and delete the damn thing, and I'll come back when we are richer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluegrassCompanies (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BluegrassCompanies, it's not about being "richer," all subjects of Wikipedia articles have to meet a notability standard. I pointed you toward useful resources on the talk page, but it seems as though you've ignored that assistance. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look here Reagan...you can delete it...I really don't know how to make myself more clear, delete it, you win, enjoy your cameras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1233 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajai R. Singh[edit]

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

Really a puff piece: a scientist with a number of hobbies, but no evidence to suggest that he passes PROF or the GNG: the sourcing consists of Who's Who and a bunch of websites, most of them the subject's own. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TNT. Some debate is possible on whether this would meet WP:PROF#8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." Singh is EIC of Mens Sana Monographs, which meets WP:NJournals. However, although MSM is notable, it really only just scrapes by and it certainly is not a "major well-established academic journal". Given the current state of this article (and without any appreciably better version in the article history), I think it is basically unsalvageable and should be nuked. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The claimed books are called "Monographs," but that usually refers to a substantial scientific work--which these are not. The journal is edits is published by Medknow, which is not a major scientific publisher. The article on Mens Sana Monographs needs some improvement to indicate its borderline status. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHIC (electronics)[edit]

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

I could not find any other references other than the book and Wayback citations as the tool is discontinued. May not also establish notability and is one of Wikipedia's dusty articles. The Snowager-is awake 02:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Snowager-is awake 02:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient information & referencing for an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately I have to agree as my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good aside from page mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. All of the relevant refs on the linked page are coauthored by Henzinger who was involved in the software development. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page should be speedy deleted. I am a new editor learning the ropes and getting to know the Wikipedia trigger words. In my opinion this article is not meeting the criteria of importance ( no indication of importance). The web content displayed here has no indication of importance beyond professor Henzinger's research. It looks like a student in a good faith started this page. I think it is damaging to the professor's reputation and the education institution to have content like this on Wikipedia. I don't see how this article could be improved. This software tool could be mentioned or listed in List of model checking tools but in see also section. CHIR website is last updated in 2004 so this an old project. Gpeja (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2015 (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. slakr^\ talk / 13:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DEL Records[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable label; sourced solely to the subject's own website. Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found then on Google News [2] and added a reference to the article. Most of the reference I find are announcements involving their artists, not about the label itself. Not sure if this would be sufficient for notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Argh. There was a Billboard article, but the problem was about a distribution deal for a single artist. Independent labels do become notable with heavy rosters (Beggars Banquet) and critical praise (Ralph Records) over time, but, until time passes and critics begin talking about the greatness that was Argent Records or Kama Sutra Records, they get press by having distribution deals. It sounds like this label probably has a few, and they're probably doing good work, but there isn't the comment on them yet to give an article. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article in current state does not demonstrate notability, but this is fixable. There are a number of further sources available. [3], [4], [5], [6] (pretty brief here), but this is enough to meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see a few more articles relating to this in music-trade magazines. Also let's look at this from the Mexican communities view. It's possibly more of notable-value to them than say Anglo. But that being the case can actually make it more notable when you have a good think about it. Article needs a lot of work to get it up to scratch as well. I'm in agreement with 78.26 , Thanks, Karl Twist 11:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that this year the label picked up 4 Premio Lo Nuestro awards. Gerardo Ortiz received 3 awards which included 1 for Mexican album of the year and Luis Coronel was Mexican Male Artist of the year. Not bad for a fledgling label! Hope this helps. thanks, Karl Twist Karl Twist (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my Keep vote, I'd like to add that knowing a bit about Cali labels and stuff, I can see the potential in this. I've done a bit of research. Well maybe not that much as I should. I can see there's a lot more to add to this article. I was going to do some work on it but I decided to hold off to see if anyone else is going to put in effort. In it's present state it possibly isn't that obvious to some unfamiliar with certain aspects of the label that there's notability so a few need to do a bit of work. I might but I'll wait for a bit. OK Karl Twist (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2015 (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.

List of Call of Duty characters[edit]

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 and cleanup: Most of the Delete notes relate to cruftiness or issues with this being a game guide or coverage limitations. I agree with all of these things, but I think that a major trimming would help a great deal. For instance, looking at the first set (for Call of Duty), there are characters listed which are not included by a single mention in the game's article; all such instances should be eliminated. Further, many of the descriptions are extensive, while they should not go beyond what the character's description is in the specific game article. Each section needs to have the "main" template added, at least, and if mention of the character is restricted to a single section, this should be included in the line item. Citation support should be provided in both the game article and here ... and that being a requirement the vast majority of the content here will be eliminated. I was tempted to indicated "delete" but there is a path to cleanup for a suitable standalone list.. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. Majority of the content on this list is unreferenced and seems to be WP:OR. The few references that can be found either come from primary sources (the game itself), or contain characters which have their own articles. WP:LISTN requires that we should at least be able to present some sources that discuss the topic itself, and I am not seeing any reliable sources that discuss the "CoD characters". WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that items on the list should be notable in itself, something that most of the characters here (if not all) fail. Keep in mind that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS is not a valid criteria. I'd appreciate comments on why this list is appropriate for Wikipedia. Finally: keep in mind there is a place for this kind of fan stuff - the http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty_Wiki _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage cannot be glossed as the references and external links currently in use in the article. This article is poorly referenced and probably much longer than it ought to be, but there are plenty of secondary sources that could be used on this article that simply haven't been added. A Google News search for "Call of Duty characters" turns up several pages of results, and searches for individual character names would undoubtedly turn up many more. Neelix (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not getting a GNG passing vibe either. The lack of referencing definitely eg the imdb link for Sgt Wallcroft only confirms the voice actor not the content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, a useless list of characters. The page isn't required. --Anar chyte 04:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
eteleD WP:GAMEGUIDE Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't keep up with each characters' names and biographies in each Call of Duty game articles and this article would make it easy for that propose. If you want, you can find some external sources for those characters, like you seen in Characters of God of War. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be read as an appeal to WP:OtherStuffExists, there would have to be good referencing, more than just mentions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be an appeal about that to WP:OtherStuffExists? BattleshipMan (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't keep up with each characters' names and biographies in each Call of Duty game articles..." Why on earth not? I don't at all understand what that's supposed to mean.
"...like you seen in Characters of God of War..." The characters in the God of War franchise actually recur in multiple games, and those games are supposed to comprise a coherent fictional world or narrative. There is therefore informational value to gathering the characters together as they actually all relate to each other, as well as formatting value to having one central page for topics (the characters) that pertain to multiple articles. Not so here, as I've explained below. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (or tentative delete). Some of the rationales given so far rest upon incorrect interpretations of guidelines or policies. WP:LISTN is not a "requirement" of all lists but instead only one way of analyzing lists (as it makes clear in its own text). It would also be difficult for a game to achieve notability without having any sources describe its characters (see, e.g., review including extensive commentary on characters for most recent game here, found in our article on that game). WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to lists of real people, not lists of fictional people, so to whatever extent there is the expectation that lists of people only contain notable people (and even for real people, that depends on the list), that has no relevance here. It is instead standard practice to have lists of characters for notable franchises (for video games and for other types of media) where the characters do not merit standalone articles as a WP:SPLIT from the main franchise article. And merely describing the content of a primary source such as a video game does not constitute OR.
That said, as best as I can tell none of the characters appear in more than one game. The franchise does not establish a shared fictional universe, but instead the narratives from one to another have nothing in common beyond sharing the same historic war settings. This definitely distinguishes this list from others like it, as that means there's really no informational utility to grouping all of the separate games' characters together. It would then be sufficient for each separate game article to internally list that game's characters. Unless I'm missing something here...? postdlf (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Why not merge CoD characters to Call of Duty (video game), and do it for other games? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If these mergers happen, then List of Call of Duty characters should either be deleted or end up a redirect to Call of Duty. Neelix (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article shows the proper approach: making a combination article for characters in a major work, instead of on one hand trying to put it all in the main article or on the other hand tryign to write separate articles. It's the correct density of coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC) a good[reply]
- Only they're not from a work; see my comment above. The separate articles already exist in the form of the articles on each game, which should each list their own internally unique and unshared characters. In light of that, what do you think is gained by grouping them together? postdlf (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Although Call of Duty characters as a group are notable per the coverage, I think this goes out of the scope of game articles. Esquivalience ^t 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GAMEGUIDE, very key characters could be moved to the main article. Azealia911 _talk 15:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a problem. Call of Duty is not one game, it's multiples and there are main articles of each games of that series. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then include the characters from each game at the games respective article. Azealia911 _talk 17:11, 8 July 2015 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Esmonde-White[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a dancer and writer, WP:COATRACKing a blatantly advertorial-toned promotional spiel for her book — and even the parts which are actually about her as a person are decidedly tilted toward a prosified résumé (see especially "Lectures and Appearances") instead of an encyclopedia article, and are leaning very heavily on invalid primary sources. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, without prejudice against recreation of a properly encyclopedic and neutral version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT an advertorial when I began the article. It seems to have been reworked in an advertorial format, which I discovered a few days ago. I was quite disappointed. I think that it's an article and topic with merit but that the format, as such, is not reason for the article's deletion; IMO, it should be wikified and its writing style returned to its proper format.

Miranda Esmonde-White, as a dancer, was significant. Her recovery and re-invention is IMO significant and of interest in light of her celebrity status. Several paragraphs seem to have been removed, including her having coached a number of athletes prior to the discovery of her cancer. MaynardClark (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning more towards delete as even the earlier version by MaynardClark was not solid and abundantly sourced while the current one is (albeit different). My searches didn't find much here, nothing at Books but results at both Highbeam and Thefreelibrary. I'm not familiar with this subject and her works but I'm not seeing much from my results. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Why don't deletionist complainers try to improve the article instead of demanding perfection from this one individual's work? Lazy!! It's a draft, and someone (in "the industry") who likes Miranda Esmonde-White) asked that it be released (from draft status) as a ready-to-go article. Why not return it to me as a draft, since I see only one or two deletionist complainers (one saying it's not fully sourced; but in 2015, repeated appearances on PBS ought to count as notability. MaynardClark (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:Look in Amazon.com for the books, DVDs, and tapes. MaynardClark (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm never sure what to do about self-help topics because there don't seem to be any reliable outlets for review and discussion of them. It's not medical but it's not quite entertainment. There are some third-party sources on this article that seem to be reasonable. Unfortunately, there is a lot of unsupported, very over-the-top stuff. I removed some of the more ridiculous unsourced claims (e.g. that she danced with Nureyev). The remaining lists should be pared down - there's no encyclopedic reason to list all of her DVDs. The article is overdone, some refs should be removed as not appropriate (e.g. to her site), and all refs need to be checked because I found some that had nothing to do with the sentence they followed. MaynardClark, I don't think you can blame unknown forces for the content of this article, since diffs show otherwise. Reducing the article to supported facts and reliable sources would actually strengthen it. LaMona (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works. All I know that as a senior, this program works and information should be made available for us seniors who are seeking information about programmes to improve our health and wellness. I am not sure what needs to be done to rewrite this so that it meets the Wiki criteria. Please advise - Thanks--Zephyr137 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for the record, one thing you need to know about how Wikipedia works is that if you want to comment in an AFD discussion, you do it at the bottom of the page, not at the top above even the page header. And another thing you need to know is that Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which any topic, health and wellness program promoter or otherwise, gets to have a promotionally-toned article just because she exists — the key to getting this kept is to make sure it reads like, and is sourced like, an encyclopedia article rather than a walking, talking billboard. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on in-depth treatment here and also here although the current article needs work, fluff trimmed, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the article to supported facts and reliable sources

How would such a revised article look? There must be a body of research - perhaps academically-centered research, on what LaMona called 'self-help topics' with which the contributions of a person, group, movement, or industry could be evaluated. That a biography doesn't do that is a weakness of the biography format; maybe that could be corrected in this and other biographical articles. Now, consider celebrities who merely entertain (but don't contribute health or other value to their audiences). They have numerous Wikipedia articles. I think that there's little doubt that there's a claim (to be evaluated, not merely 'balanced' against criticisms). How any such claims should be identified, then evaluated, might be a task for Wikipedians. But that effort might actually add content, not merely delete content.
On the DVDs, they ought to be listed somewhere else; Wikipedia isn't advertising real estate; however, many biographies have bibliographies, even extensive bibliographies. How does one contemplate the educational contributions through media appearances, media, books, articles, interviews, etc.? MaynardClark (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is academically-centered research, I have not discovered it. In fact, where self-help meets science and academe, self-help usually takes a beating (see South Beach Diet as an example). Lists of a person's own products (books, DVDs, whatever) and appearances by the person are not third-party information about the person and cannot contribute to notability. A few well-known or "best sellers" make sense in a WP article, but the full list is not relevant to the establishment of notability. It is sufficient to link to the person's web site where all of the products are list. LaMona (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Results aren't coherent at this time, relisting one last time. JAaron95 (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NYT best-seller is sufficient for notability. I've removed most of the promotionalism. The alternative would have been deletion, and this need sa check that the advertising material is not re-added. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a few Wikipedia editors have worked on this so that the article is quite different from the earlier article. But in that process, each of those editors has considered both the energetic productivity (and visibility) AND the criteria of notability of the article's subject. MaynardClark (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maynard and WP:HEY. It has been substantially re-done since nomination. Bearian (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enn Syan[edit]

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

Autobiography of author, sources barely mention subject (I can only find one actual mention). Fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems the claim of notability is directing award-winning music videos, but sources only support that he was a "co-directer/coordinator". Even if directing a music video that wins an award is notable, being a coordinator is not. Fails WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 23:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now those sources are gone, replaced with Youtube videos. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing by sources could be found with Indian media. Mr RD (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sources have been added, but I've addressed on the talk page why the situation hasn't changed (in short, the only RS is in passing, WP:SELFPUB, one of the sources just collected search engine results). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now with the possibility if someone actually wants to userfy it but my first searches immediately found no good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael William-Paul[edit]

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

Vast tracts of this vanity bio are completely unverifiable, or can only be traced back to the subject's website. All secondary coverage I can find is either self-generated or completely negative. Mostly written by accounts with COI, I believe it thoroughly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nomination. (Though I'll be sorry that WP would lose at least one nugget: he found himself emerged in pop culture.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The best my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found was this passing mention where he was an event organizer and supporter. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A grotesque of vanity for a subject whose notability is not evidenced by substantial coverage from independent, reliable coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grup 14[edit]

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

Non-notable fan club. Unable to find third party sourcing and none provided in article. Article had been A7'd and quickly re-created. Afterwards, another editor nominated the article for speedy but a mysterious IP removed the tag. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are listed, only the subject's own website. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Also seems vaguely promotional, in that its primary purpose seems to be to link to their forum. ~ Rob^Talk 23:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of meeting any of the notability criteria. Not going to launch an SPI but theres a quacking sound coming from somewhere. Amortias (T)(C) 09:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC
Keep The website suggests of notability, having articles by many of the most well-known authors in Spain, like Ángel Iturriaga Barco (see here: http://grup14.com/member/angel-iturriaga) and collaborations with famous writers like Xavi Torres (see: http://grup14.com/member/xavi-torres). ~ Arvin^Talk 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)— ArvinKH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ As some of the editors above are lying about, there's no link to the forum. ~ Arvin^Talk 12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)— ArvinKH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please do not include a "vote" twice (and I use that term loosely, as deletion discussions are not a vote). You're free to comment/respond as many times as you like, of course, but you can do so without stating Keep or Delete after your first. There was a link to the forum when I made my comment earlier, which you have now removed. The page still shows no signs of meeting notability guidelines, which would require significant coverage in independent sources. ~ Rob^Talk 10:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArvinKH, do not remove other editors' comments or SPA indicators.--Rpclod (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor apologized and notified me of this on my talk page prior to Rpclod reverting his edits or being warned in any way, so he seems to be acting in good faith. He should still take Rpclod's comments to heart, though, and stop removing content of any sort from deletion discussions or AfD templates from articles. ~ Rob^Talk 11:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the second vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never deleted anything and I never will. This was just an accident. ArvinKH (talk)
ArvinKH, despite your statements to the contrary, you obviously attempted to blank the page under an IP address after re-editing the comments made under your Wikipedia user name. This suggests an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior and could be a basis for blocking your edit capability. Please maintain productive editing.--Rpclod (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rpclod, I find it unacceptable on how you accuse me of wrongdoing, I have not been doing this, and I don't understand why you think I have. I'm just starting Wikipedia, and I got to say, this has yet not been a fun experience, but I hope things won't be the same in the long-run. After consideration I think this page should be removed, as the author, and as the only person that wants (or, wanted) this page to be stay, I allow you to remove it. Grup 14 is still new, and maybe when some third party sources start writing about it again, I'll reclaim the page. But right now, I have taken your sayings in consideration and I think we should remove it. And please, don't accuse me of things I haven't done, I find that very disrespectful.

Best Regards! -- ArvinKH — Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not what I was seeking, I assume that the article can now be speedy deleted pursuant to WP:G7.--Rpclod (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rpclod], please mention my name if you're speaking to me :-)

Yes, please delete it. I will re-create it when enough third party sources mention Grup 14. And by the way, this won't be the last time you will see me, as I will continue editing and writing.Hope you have nice day, and please, next time, don't accuse me of things without evidence. -- ArvinKH — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArvinKH (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template added for speedy deletion. ~ Rob^Talk 16:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArvinKH: I'm glad to see that you still want to write/edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia definitely needs more enthusiastic newcomers. I hope this deletion discussion doesn't put you off editing. And if you weren't the disruptive IP user, then apologies for the mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, could we Userfy this article instead of deleting it? They might become notable in the future. Joseph2302(talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC

@Joseph2302: Good idea, I think we can do that. But if the other guys don't agree with it, I still wouldn't mind the article being deleted.ArvinKH

@Rpclod and BU Rob13: What do you think about userfying it? Also, I've removed the G7, since the above suggests the author would much rather have it userfied than deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they care enough to respond. I have decided to speedy delete it instead, as I want it removed and Userfying would take too much time. But a question, if you speedy delete it, would I be able to create it again later on, when there are more sources? ArvinKH (talk)

Yes, as long as there is significant evidence of notability from reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Caring is my middle name. Userfication is an acceptable option and that would make preserving content easier. When you do find reliable sources that demonstrate notability, add them in context and move the article back.--Rpclod (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to userfying this or moving it to the draft space. I heavily recommend that this article go through the Articles for Creation process if ArvinKH eventually decides to move this back to the mainspace, as this will ensure the article meets policy and won't quickly become the subject of a deletion discussion again. ~ Rob^Talk 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a fan group of FC Barcelona, I was expecting to find lots of reliable sources about them, but I cannot find any. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what's more reliable than the website itself? ArvinKH (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArvinKH: Most secondary sources about them would be better than their own website. Their own website might say they're important, but anyone can say that about themselves. Wikipedia requires evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources (newspaper/magazine articles/books about them). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: There are many websites don't have things like this covered, like one of the biggest football websites ESPN FC. Find me an article from a third party source talking about them. ArvinKH (talk)

ArvinKH, if I got the facts wrong, I apologize. I do hope that you continue editing and writing and sincerely I wish you good success.--Rpclod (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @ArvinKH: Are you the same person as the Manager Arvin listed on [7]? If so, you have a conflict of interest and are advised to read Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Sorry for the late respond. Arvin is not my real name, my real name is Arvid, the username is a combination of my first name and my surname. and I made it to one name. KH I use everywhere, it's the tag I use when I play Playstation (even if that sounds silly, it's the truth). I prefer to stay anonymous on the internet so I have used that name. But I don't think there's any problem with my real identity in Wikipedia. ArvinKH (talk)

Okay, that's fine then, so you're just a fan then? If you want, you can remove your real name, to protect your identity. Also, your name doesn't sound particularly silly, Joseph2302 has become my generic Internet/forum name, so it's just the same as that. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just removed it. Yeah, I enjoy their articles and I read them a lot. I wrote a guest article once, but I'm not sure if that counts as conflict of interest. ArvinKH (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly promotional article. No indication that this forum has received any form of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Comments about notability being justified because of who some of the sites authors are is not a relevant discussion point as notability is not inherited. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:34, 30 June 2015 (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. Although this phrase is found in various sources with various meanings, consensus is that this article about one particular, recently-introduced, interpretation fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key development indicator[edit]

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

Is notability demonstrated? The only online reference does not mention the term at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The term is commonly used in Management science. It has been mentioned in a couple of books such as this book, in academic conferences such as Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on e-Government, used by several international organizations such as International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank, OECD, World Bank, this book, this book, Proceedings of Fifth International Danida Workshop on Watershed Development, World Bank, this book, The Gambia and Its President, another book to mention few. Other similar term includes Key Performance Indicator, World Development Indicators and Africa Development Indicators. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have simply done a search on the coincidental occurence of those words in that order as opposed to the actual neologism claimed in the article. The claim that this term, as "introduced in 2012" is widely used in management science is absurd, and the majority of those cites have zero to do with that article. Are there any of those that you feel are directly applicable? Kuru (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kuru. The claim that the term was introduced in 2012 is really absurd and I'm aware of the blatant WP:COI in connection with the article. However, Pointing those sources out is to show that the term is commonly used and this article in question may need to be completely rewritten perhaps by another established editor. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An obvious attempt by Bob Aubrey (User:Bobauthor!) to drum up sales for his forthcoming book, which, while it won't be published for another two to three months, incredibly serves as the article's primary source. And while the term "key development indicator" (with different meanings than Aubrey's) might warrant a mention in International development#Measurement or Childhood development, "key development indicator" as a measure of employee "learning, innovation and change" is 100% WP:NEO. Giving a widely-used term in some other field Aubrey's own new definition so that he can sell business improvement books and business improvement consulting services is clever, but ultimately Wikipedia is not a platform for Aubrey to advertise his wares for free. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also, Personal development. A pattern there... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what Daniel^ said. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Acid3. Since the article was blanked and redirected by the original author, I'm going to treat it as a variant of G7 and speedy-close this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acid3 browser scores[edit]

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

Page has almost no content, fewer than 15 edits, and has not been updated in 2 months. Additionally, if updated, this page is potentially an unmaintainable list. —danhash (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article seems to have been converted into a redirect by its original editor since the start of this AfD. PWilkinson (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They did. Looks like we can close this request. —danhash (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow/procedural close The article was indeed redirected while at AfD. The bureaucratic way of handling the situation is to revert the redirection, but letting it go seems best. The only disagreement I could see is that the redirect is not needed, and then it is an issue to raise at WP:RfD, not here. Tigraan (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eye Louie's Vodquila[edit]

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

Promotional, does not meet WP:GNG. Speedy deletion templates removed, first by creator (who admits to being company cofounder), then by editor apparently created for the purpose of removing templates without being the creator of the article. ubiquity (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least one source has been found to indicate that this product has won an international award at the IWSC. The promotional tone has been fixed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which have been added to the article since its nomination.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include: [8], [9], [10], [11]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2015 (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. slakr^\ talk / 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Le Blanc (historian)[edit]

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

Cannot find notability for this historian. The citations are to articles he wrote, or to material put out by the very minor college where he teaches. One exception is a linked Kirkus review of a collection of essays on Socialism in the U.S.A., one of them by LeBlanc (discussion of LeBlanc in full:"Historian Paul Le Blanc argues persuasively for a third American revolution mounted by 'a broad left-wing coalition' that could spark a mass socialist movement.") There is a long list of books, almost all appear to be collections of the writings of notable figures edited or compiled by Paul. Publishers are not listed and none of LeBlanc's books is in the collection of major university whose catalog I searched. The exception is Leblanc's first book (probably his doctoral thesis). My university does not own it, but unlike his other books, this one got a review findable in JSTOR. Unfortunately the reviewer writes: "It would be fine if (LeBlanc) accomplished this important and worthwhile aim, unfortunately Lenin and the Revolutionary Party promises much more than it delivers. Hobbled by an incoherence... it ends up... failing to make a substantial contribution to knowledge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed in the daily logs. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 12. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks like WP:AUTHOR would be easier to pass than WP:PROF for this sort of material. But for that, I think we should distinguish the books that are mostly others' writings edited by the subject from the books written by the subject. I did find another published review of one of his actual books [12]. But putting that together with the one mentioned by the nominator is not, I think, enough, especially because of the specialized audience of these reviews compared to e.g. the newspaper reviews more typically expected in WP:AUTHOR. Certainly if this is kept it needs to be trimmed down to material that can be given reliable sources; for instance, I think most of the "Scholarship" section needs to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about him comes even close to passing the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 20 historical works and being a main associate editor on a substantial encyclopedia seem to me sufficient to warrant keeping this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- over 1,000 library holdings in total for his books (not counting one early book that I couldn't verify his authorship of). I think it needs to be trimmed substantially, but it's far above the bar for a humanist/social science author. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Anyone is who the author of a CHOICE Outstanding Book of the year is notable--it's one of the highest awards for an academic book. It also represents a substantial review.I added some book holdings from worldcat (Any CHOICE review, in fact, not just the 5% that they mark as outstanding, is a selective review showing notability-) Besides the book he edited, some of his books have over 500 library holdings, which is contributing information. I do not think the article as it stands needs cutting--its just a plain description of what the books deal with, which can be taken from any good source--even a publisher's description can be used for this--tho a publisher's description does not in the least make for notability or justify statements of praise or evaluations. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- About that award, Here: [13] the ALA says that it gives out about 700 such awards per year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for the library ownership of his books, most of them are edited collections of the work of classic socialist authors; for example, the collection of Rosa Luxembourg writings that the co-edited was presumably purchased for its value in gathering Luxembourg essays otherwise hard to find because they were printed in hard to find old newspapers. Luxembourg was a notable figure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely puzzled, the page looks good, even the idea of "A Freedom Budget for All Americans" being selected as one of the 700 or so best academic titles of the year sounds good, But when I google "A Freedom Budget for All Americans" + "le blanc" in a search on books, I get exactly 2 titles citing the book both by LeBlanc. [14] Books with any impact at all come up with scores of footnotes in other people's books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or try a google search on his name. The first page brings up Wikipedia, every other source on the first page of the search is self sourced. It includes online chat pages, his publisher Haymarket Books (a non-profit publisher subsizides by an organizaiton he blongs to - the International Socialist Organization) and a journal published by the ISO. Is there anyone else with a Wikipedia page for whom whom the first page of a google search turns up no indicaiton of notability?

Page 2 of the same google search turns up more or less the same: 2 ISO publications and his linked-in page, and nothing indicating notability. I am googling in English, but from Alsace and google.fr may be producing different results than it would in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I may be wrong. I just haven't seen evidence of notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential proportional approval voting[edit]

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

Delete per WP:G4. Markus Schulze 07:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the reason for prior deletion no longer applies - this article was previously deleted, as it had insufficient sources, and was therefore deemed 'original research'. This is no longer the case, and while the article is substantially the same as before (because the method itself has not changed!) there are now articles and papers about it including one from 2014 regarding algorithmic complexity. In addition to this, it appears to fit within the project Elections and Referendums, as noted on its talk page by Number 57, which is aiming to, among other things, improve coverage of various voting methods. There are in fact more references to it out there, but I wasn't sure where in the article to put them or whether they would be necessary. Felixaldonso (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More references now added. Felixaldonso (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Original AfD appears to have been for "Original research. Possibly a hoax". Given article now refs 4 academic papers and a book and is clearly neither of those things, WP:G4 ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy") is inapplicable. No-one doubts User:MarkusSchulze and Schulze Beatpaths' brilliance, but that doesn't mean any voting system he didn't personally invent doesn't deserve an article (if it satisfies WP:N, which this appears to). -- simxp (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently well sourced. The reasons for the delete votes in the previous AfD have been addressed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (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) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Pakistani Dramas[edit]

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

PROD removed by page creator without comment. There is nothing to indicate what makes these dramas part of the top 20? Seems to be based on creators opinion, rather that an agreed criteria. Made up IMO. A case of WP:LISTCRUFT perhaps Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that for some reason, there seems to be a very marked tendency toward the creation of completely subjective and unsourced "top" ranking lists of topics related to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (as well as a tendency to bung up categories by adding "top" to them, as if the category system were meant as a venue for ranking things either.) This is not the kind of content we should be maintaining — a list of all Pakistani drama series, without subjective "top" rankings, might be appropriate, but this is not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a non-objective, personal essay.--Rpclod (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2015 (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. Reminder to nominator: Notability is based on the existence of sources, not solely the state of sourcing in an article, and article content does not determine notability. Articles do not have to name the sources in order for its corresponding topic to be notable. Sources do not vanish because they were not named in the article. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia_Greenhall[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. cagliost (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Cagliost: Can you elaborate? Right now your rationale sounds like it's a claim about the present condition of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, if you can edit the article to make clear why she is notable, please do. cagliost (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her claim to fame in "co-founding" a blog that is good at trying to engage in promotion, but has not gotten any indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No valid deletion rationale given, as confirmed by Cagiost's response to my comment above. Notability is about the subject, not the present state of the article. That sources are not presently in the article doesn't matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True but the fact that such sources are not mentioned in the article is evidence that they don't exist. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." cagliost (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable and incorrect to say no evidence of notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Lengthy profile in Fast Company[15] and detailed tech media coverage of almost everything she's said over the past few years (see other links). Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmileCareClub[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is stand-alone, as covered in reference articles. Subject has been covered outside of Wikipedia by multiple sources including New York Times, the Today Show, and Progressive Orthodontist (a leading publication in the orthodontic field) as well as a number of local news stations. I just added another local news station source to further substantiate the article. My guess is it's being reported as not notable because Joseph2302 may have thought this is the same as other invisible aligners. It's a totally different company with a different model, as the sources show. Pandasaysno (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)PandaSaysNo[reply]

NYT article is a blog, not a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As cited on the post NYT article : A version of this article appears in print on 02/03/2015, on page D6 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Straighter Teeth, by Mail. Article appeared on both the Well blog and in the print edition of the newspaper Pandasaysno (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I have made edits to this page in the past, but I am not the article creator. Pandasaysno (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CORP: [16][17]. Disclosure: By chance I have a COI with a competitor. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article complies with all Wikipedia policies, the subject of the article is covered by numerous sources outside of Wikipedia. Smile Care Club is registered with the Better Business Bureausince 2014, and the company services enough customers with a new product to warrant a wikipedia page. There is no reason to delete this page.

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) JAaron95 (Talk) 12:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Beaumont[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who fails the notability guideline for entertainers. I was unable to find reliable, independent, in-depth sources beyond "Beaumont has a part on show X" articles like this or this . Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howicus (apologies if this is the wrong place to discuss this, if so, advise me and I will submit my argument elsewhere). Daisy Beaumont was a regular in the BAFTA winning (also twice BAFTA nominated) Star Stories, as well as in a regular in two series of the hit series 'You, Me & Them', screened regularly on UK Channel UK Gold.

She is a regular face on British television, and many of her screen roles can be found at her IMDB page, here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0064584/.

She also has extensive theatre credits, has performed at the National Theatre in London, several times in the West End, and was one of the original cast of the hit Boeing-Boeing (as is mentioned in the wikipedia article for the musical here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing-Boeing_(play). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanevacca (talk • contribs)

She's been in a lot of notable TV programmes, but there's still not significant coverage about her- so far I've managed to add 2 articles from the Metro about her, and the Metro isn't a great source. Unfortunately, there's no depth of coverage about her, and unless someone finds any, I don't believe she passes WP:GNG or WP:ACTRESS, so Delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ok, I understand that. What counts as notable coverage? Does this count, for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanevacca (talk • contribs)

That last link just has a photo of the actress, so that's not significant coverage. WP:GNG explains what "significant coverage" means. –anemone projectors– 17:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further coverage of Daisy Beaumont:

TV etc

The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/646127/Star-Stories-girl-in-Enders-role.html
Huffington Post review (mentioned and pictured): http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/04/whitechapel-review-rupert-penry-jones-phil-davis_n_3869094.html
UK Gold website, info on series 'You, Me and Them' (several mentions and pictures throughout site): http://gold.uktv.co.uk/you-me-them/article/you-me-them/
Interview: http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/you_me_and_them/interview/daisy_beaumont/
Review in The Telegraph (picture captioned "Daisy Beaumont stars as Maisie...": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/doctor-who/11154590/Doctor-Who-review-Mummy-on-the-Orient-Express.html
HatTrick official website: https://www.hattrick.co.uk/news/?news_id=67
BFI entry: http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2bac455f30

Theatre

Daisy is a very experienced and successful theatre actress, which is tricky because theatre receives less media coverage than TV and film work. Much of such coverage is in reviews, some of which I have posted below. Daisy is mentioned significantly in all.

Mail online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-427257/Revival-farce-did-amuse-Queen.html
Guardian review: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/sep/30/chorus-disapproval-mademoiselle-julie-binoche
Official London Theatre: http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/backstage-pass/gallery/article/item150584/in-rehearsal-a-chorus-of-disapproval/
Variety review: http://variety.com/2012/legit/reviews/a-chorus-of-disapproval-1117948452/
Telegraph review: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/9571734/A-Chorus-of-Disapproval-Harold-Pinter-Theatre-review.html
London Theatre Direct: https://www.londontheatredirect.com/news/1000/Full-cast-announced-for-Trevor-Nunn-s-production-of-Alan-Ayckbourn-s-A-Chorus-Of-Disapproval.aspx
Independent review: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/reviews/a-chorus-of-disapproval-harold-pinter-theatre-london--jesus-christ-superstar-o2-arena-london-8190730.html

RoxaneVacca Roxanevacca (talk) talk

Although you say pictures are not significant coverage, this: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/star-stories is the official page for the Channel 4 series 'Star Stories' in which Daisy starred. Her image is in the icon of almost every episode on that page, which proves the significance of her presence in the show.

Another cast announcement featuring Daisy, this time in the Express: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/103748/MUMBAI-CALLING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanevacca (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an in-depth treatment plus there is coverage in numerous other publications (although mostly mentions) such as the Guardian, and a photo in the Telegraph and a review here, overall, it adds up to meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abundant reliable sources now found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roxanevacca & Tomwsulcer's findings - Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, with a filmography to illustrate that. After all, it is a Stub, so we know it needs improvement. It's come a long way from its original 2007 unsourced, two-sentence creation. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2015 (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 and redirect to Chess boxing. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Chessboxing[edit]

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

No independent notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am looking at this and wonder how this is notable for a stand alone article - is London Chessboxing distinct from chessboxing. All I see is a single venue event. The reporting could just as easily be reporting on a chessboxing event held in London.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to chess boxing - I'm surprised to learn this is even an thing and has coverage. London Chessboxing is mentioned by some notable publications in articles about chess boxing: The Guardian, The Huffington Post and The Telegraph. It's arguable if this is really coverage on London Chessboxing or simply chess boxing. Either way there's very little hope this will become anything more than a stub and a redirect would be a suitable middle-ground until the club can unquestionably establish its own notability. Mkdw ^talk 03:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reporting on events is just routine sports coverage. Nothing to show London chessboxing is individually notable. Jakejr (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I find references online to chessboxing, but not to the subject club. The article's discussion of references suggests that they in turn discuss the subject, but few actually do and there is no notability shown.--Rpclod (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough significant independent coverage to show this merits an individual article. It's difficult to even tell if this is supposed to be about a specific group or just general chessboxing events in London. Papaursa (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow London Chessboxing is just one chessboxing promoter and is not synonymous with the sport as there are many other chessboxing promoters across the globe, most notably Chess Boxing Global in Germany. Events have been performed in over 7 different venues including the Royal Albert Hall which I think illustrates the significance of London Chessboxing. London Chessboxing is the only promoter in the UK and is the only promoter to have run events in London; however, chessboxing is a global sport and should be taken in this context. Although I appreciate that some of the authors of the comments have probably not heard of London Chessboxing they have an extensive fan base and have partnered such brands as Unilad^[1] (over 5 million followers on Facebook) and Yplan in promotional activity, give a chance I expect London Chessboxing fans to elaborate on this entry so that it does progress from a stub - I note there have already been some other contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjapaterson (talk • contribs) — Gjapaterson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

^ "Unilad". Unilad. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

Delete or redirect Lacks the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. Having a lot of Facebook followers does not make it notable. Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even so Unilad has the facebook followers not London Boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pheby[edit]

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

Reason Jayroo1991 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC) There appears to be a lack of reliable sources that discuss this person; all the ones here are primary or related sources and the book blog mentioned doesn’t qualify as an independent source. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. Having Googled the author, it is evident they have not so far received any significant coverage in ‘multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject’ as required. The publishers appear obscure at best. Jayroo1991 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. This person has two books, both from very small presses, very few holdings in libraries, no major reviews (that I can find). However, this could use a Scottish viewpoint, or it least someone searching from within the UK, before a decision is made. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the Scottish connection with this English novelist? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent book is published by a small Scottish publishing house, Two Ravens Press. Where that places him in terms of English/Scottish authors isn't clear to me, but it seems that if there will be reviews, etc., they may appear in the country of publication as well as the country of the author's origin. LaMona (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second all points above. As someone searching within the UK I can clarify that the publishers are extremely obscure, to put it politely, and I am aware of many other authors who would be more worthy of a page here and aren't. If everyone of this author's status was to be given a stub this would be a cluttered Wikipedia indeed! As a sidenote, I notice that the page compares Pheby to Kafka. I note that the author has not written any other pages than this, but regardless of any suspicions about that, this seems a grandiose claim at best, with only one weak citation to back it up. At the very least this page therefore needs an overhaul; but I gently suggest it may well not be worth it. Cammy2578 — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coverage by independent sources? It doesn't matter if this is the greatest unread novel since, indeed, Kafka. If it isn't being discussed outside its publisher, we don't cover the works or their author. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2015 (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. The original views seems to be from prior to the expansion and inclusion of more sources to the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy combe[edit]

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

Non-notable director. No reliable sources found to indicate any significance. Tinton5 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides directing a few Doctor Who episodes, he doesn't seem to be of much note. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - can't find much besides mentions in DW articles —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He directed Doctor Who and Z-Cars? Is the latter a show or a type of Nissan? The article says he's only known for those two things, and yet it says that he's really a theatrical agent. Huh? Even internal claims for notability fail. Oh, and one assumes he spells his last name with a capital letter. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Might be an idea to check very basic facts before commenting - Z-Cars was a massively successful UK tv show. Not everything is America, you know :) Lots of written references too - I'll add some (surname does indeed need amended though) StuartDouglas (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And the article says 'best known' not 'only known' - you might at least read articles you comment on StuartDouglas (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I'm stung to the quick! You know what would help? Formatting. I know it's pedantic, but I'm a sucker for little things like italics to show a television series. It's possible that I was even pointing out the lack of formatting with my comment. I could even have been doing that to highlight the amount of obsessive love people will poor onto the worst conceived article here when it shows the most manifest lack of forethought and execution there. You know. . . crazy things like giving a person a capital letter for his last name. Writing well is a form of self-defense. Nevertheless, I'm sure that it is a matter of great seriousness that "Timothy combe" be preserved so that its author's carefully chosen words may be honored. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - How silly - you seem to think minor and easily amended typoes are the same thing as your inability to read. Oh well, intellectual level established. Is that why Wikipedia policy on proper and courteous behaviour has passed you by - nobody to read it out loud to you? In which case, apologies - I would never mock anyone with learning difficulties. StuartDouglas (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Z Cars was a very significant British drama which ran for 16 years, 1962-1978. According to IMDB he was its 5th most prolific director[18], and all the top 4 on that list have Wikipedia pages, though all have somewhat longer CVs than Combe. Combe's IMDB page is here: [19]. It says he retired from directing to become an actors' agent in the 1970s, but has appeared in a few documentaries as himself in the 2000s. He's probably borderline but I lean to "weak keep". Adpete (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in the Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors and it doesn't seem difficult to find coverage in other sources. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article updated with multiple sources.StuartDouglas (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Directed a number of episodes of two very significant series, plus a fair number of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (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. While on a simple vote count this could be no consensus and there are many weak arguments on both sides, there is a clear swing in opinion as the discussion continued (including both the nominator and one delete supporter changing their opinions). This tracked an improvement and expansion of the article, which is significantly different to what the early comments was based on. As such I judge that there is now a consensus for keeping the current article.

There is strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to. There is an open move request on the article talk page and I encourage those who commented here to contribute to that discussion and reach consensus there. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ramadan attacks[edit]

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

This article takes three separate incidents which are separately covered (1, 2, 3) and makes two substantial and unproven assumptions:

They are linked
They were instigated by a particular message from an ISIS leader

The link between these events may yet be proven but it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to be presenting it as fact at this stage. The article's existence depends on that link, and even the title itself assumes it, so it should be deleted or at least taken out of article space. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. There is no link as there have been attacks since the month started and will more by the years end. It's just one day of multiple attacks. At any rate, there have been state and non-state attacks on every Ramadan for a few years. Some neocon pandering is more like it.120.62.27.54 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PERP fails.--115ash^→(☏) 14:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason given by RichardOSmith. There is no proven link, other than the general ideological one. Boreas74 ^{Speak Softly} 14:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already contested the deletion. However, I wish we can change the title. Barjimoa (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates more complete lists List of terrorist incidents, 2015 and List of Islamist terrorist attacks - article included ISIL flag in apparent poor taste, or a desire to advocate for ISIL (WP:SOAP) - recommend speedy delete. If the link "may yet be proven" then delete this now and re-add if there's RS. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this absolutely must be kept, it should be moved to 26 June 2015 attacks to limit POV assertions about Ramadan, and PRIMARY assertions from terrorists should be replaced with SECONDARY sources that analyse their meaning. -- Aronzak (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed someone has created 26 June 2015 attacks which seems to cover the same ground. Boreas74 ^{Speak Softly} 20:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article is the subject of a major terror event. If this event expands, you will have to create a new article.--Ridland (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the associated template, as entirely WP:SYNTH. ansh 666 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename, as now the SYNTH seems to be official - though not the Ramadan part. No opinion on what to rename it to. Also, the article needs to be carefully maintained such that it only mentions the attacks which media mention together (as far as I can tell it's France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, and possibly a note about Kobani). I still believe the template needs to go, though that's a different discussion. ansh 666 22:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until there is some evidence that these attacks were coordinated (and personally I believe the time for such a claim to be made by IS has passed) this is WP:SYNTH --5.81.51.171 (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I'd also add 3. That these attacks are somehow related to Ramadan as also being WP:SYNTH. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. Just because these attacks occurred on the same day and were all sparked by an ISIL leader's message doesn't necessarily mean they are linked. DisuseKid (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Governments have even stated "no evidence to say the attacks were linked". This article is based on hypothesis and fabrication. There was no such co-ordinated attack. WWGB (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a coincidence of terror attacks. Leave the article alone unless editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.55.51 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the template, as violation of WP:SYNTH. There is no evidence that all three of the attacks are somehow linked or coordinated. One of the sources cited says "Friday’s fourth deadly outbreak of violence, the al-Qaida-linked al-Shabaab group attacked..." So when sources mention the Tunisia, France, Kuwait events, they are simply aggregating news by the fact that it happened on the same day.VR _talk 08:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE see also the move request that someone filed for this article at Talk:2015 Ramadan attacks -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also the template deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 27#Template:Campaignbox 2015 Ramadan attacks -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015) - see extensive news coverage tying these events together under one name - additional analysis like this shows long-term impact of these events (reassessment that ISIL is no longer classified a "regional" threat). I'll try to clean this article up today. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politico is neutral? In that case all non-nato sources are neutral against an agenda. This is clearly moving into a neocon agenda with overwhelming opposition.120.62.20.8 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that Politico has been declared a non-RS or that it is something along the lines of Breitbart in terms of sketchiness. It's not an opinion piece, but they are quoting the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I also don't know what you mean by neocon agenda - I'm the last person in the world who is a "neocon." There should be no agenda here - it either meets GNG as an event or it doesn't, and it does: these separate events have gained significant, united coverage under the name Bloody Friday. It sounds like you have your own agenda, 120. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source reliability for an assertion in an article title should be treated as higher than for the article body - "Ramadan" is an entire month, and declaring it related to Ramadan should require conclusive evidence, not POV assertions by various outlets. WP:NEO calls for concern around new words (asking for strong evidence of secondary usage) - this should similarly apply to the phrase "Bloody friday" - it's used by some media, but not all, I'd argue source reliability is not high enough to preference POV assertions in titles above, say, "26 June 2015 attacks" (boring, but descriptive). -- Aronzak (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should not have been called "Ramadan attacks," but it has been referred to as "Bloody Friday" repeatedly by RS. "The strong of attacks killed at least 65 people in total on a dark day that is now being referred to as “bloody Friday”."[20], [21], [22] Keep in mind, this only happened yesterday. I don't see why Politico is unreliable either, but even so they were not speculating but reporting what an official stated. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent and some source reprint an Independent article? I can hardly call it "independent" and don't see how reliable it is. George Ho (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't notice the albawaba was a reprint, sorry. But I fail to see why The Independent is not a RS. It's certainly not part of any "neocon agenda." It's already being called "Bloody Friday" in multiple sources, and again, it's barely been a day. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep All attacks are islamic attacks and they are at least linked by the date, a friday in Ramadan, a holy day in the holy month. Tuncker (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jihadism is not "Islamic" - it's a violent form of Islamism. The link is that this was a one year anniversary of ISIS declaring themselves a state.-- Aronzak (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, a product of tabloid journalism. Not suited to the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and SYNTH. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless/until strong evidence emerges of the attacks being linked & coordinated, and is covered in multiple RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VERY SRONG KEEP THE ATTACKS ARE LINKED, SO PLEASE DONT DELETE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridland (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- Already !voted above. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's time to re-look at the article and see what content has been added since the nomination was made. I think there's sufficent WP:GNG to put the attacks together (by that I mean three terrible events happening on the same day, regardless if they were linked or not) and maybe a more neutral title such as 26 June 2015 terrorist attacks or 26 June 2015 attacks is needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the attacks, ISIS claimed responsibility or the perpetrator was an ISIS sympathizer. However, we may need to remove references to the Somalian attack, since that is linked to al-Shabab instead. --Article editor (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Even if the attacks are not directly related, it is notable that three or more terrorist attacks were carrried out within a few hours of each other one three separate continents each receiving worldwide media attention. However, I say we rename it to the date June 26 attacks - or Bloody Friday, Fatal or whatever if that becomes a widely used term for the collective attacks (kinda how "Arab Spring" replaced 2010-2011 MENA protests)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015) - There is media coverage by RS connecting these events and claims of ISIL ties to all of them (except the Leego attack which should be removed). Add 2015 to the end due to previous events called Bloody Friday. Hello32020 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no proof the attacks are linked and the title is suggesting they are is misleading. They might have been inspired by the same source but that does not suggest they were planned or coordinated as one event. Keeping the events as separate entries would suffice as they are noteworthy events in themselves and combining them would diminish that. If the article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite and major clean up to conform to wikipedia standards. smrgeog (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015) multiple media sources naming the day and referring to the attacks together is justification to keep, regardless of whether they were coordinated (beyond a leader exhorting mujahideen everywhere to attack). Yes, Islamist attacks occur frequently around the world, but the number of attacks, and number of casualties, is unusually high for one day. 3 of the 5 have already been claimed by Daesh, and the one in France likely is associated with it as well. Uncertain whether to include Leego - Al Shabaab has pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, competitive to Daesh, but at the same time it is consistent for them to attack during Ramadan as well. Rationaledit (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Suyog^{talk to me!} 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to explain why. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is significantly different from how it was when I nominated it. User:Wikimandia, in particular, has done much good work in changing its focus so that it is now very reasonably an article that examines world reaction to the near-simultaneous incidents. It is not surprising to me that the above opinions change from almost exclusively 'delete' to almost exclusively 'keep' at around the same time. I guess I cannot withdraw the nomination and close this because of the number of early 'delete' !votes but I am certainly happy to change my own to keep and rename to 26 June 2015 terrorist attacks or similar. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RichardOSmith for your unbiased reassessment of the article! I think the "Ramadan attacks" title is POV and may have influenced some early delete votes. I'm still leaning toward Bloody Friday (2015) rather than the 26 June date; some of the reports have included Thursday's massacre at Kobani under the "Bloody Friday/Black Friday" label with the reasoning that Friday began with the bloody/black news of the Kobani horror. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bloody Friday (2015).GreyShark (dibra) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Also there is no indication the attacks were coordinated. 26oo (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is clearly notable, and meets criteria per WP:GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The subject is clearly notable, and meets the WP:GNG criteria. Also, the events notable are more than notable enough to be documented, and the timing of the attacks (not to mention ISIL Spokesman Al-Adani's statement) seems to suggest that there is a strong correlation between each of the attacks. And DON'T rename, since the Battle of Kobanî (June 2015) spans June 25–29, which falls outside the window for a "Bloody Friday (June 2015)" article title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Especially given that there were at least four incidents on the same day. Historically this will be notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability of all incidents plus that they happened on the same day warrant an article. EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is clearly notable, and meets criteria per WP:GNG 17:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Gurumoorthy Poochandhai
Delete - Aside from the coincidence of happening on the same day, these attacks don't seem to be linked. Some of them aren't even of the same type; there is a big difference between one guy killing his boss in France and al-Shabaab carrying out a large-scale military operation in Somalia. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having said that, perhaps if the scope of the article were limited to the attacks in France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, it would feel more focused and justifiable. What troubles me about the article as it currently stands, aside from obvious concerns about OR, is the inclusion of the recent fighting in Kobani, which has been going on for days and which began before these attacks, and of the Battle of Leego, which doesn't involve ISIS and is a part of a conflict that's been going on for years. By attempting to include all of these attacks under the banner of the "Ramadan attacks" or "Bloody Friday", we're overlooking the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamic militancy, which I think are two different things (but maybe that's just my POV). As I said above, the French attack and the attack on Leego, besides their vast difference in scale, are also very different in type. If we were to focus the article exclusively on France, Tunisia, and Kuwait, I think a persuasive case could be made for the attacks as representing the range and the scope of ISIS's terrorism. By bringing in pitched battles in civil wars, we dilute the subject. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and ReorganizeAlhanuty (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. —Nightstallion 07:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Catlemur (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The argument against deletion is not strong as of today, though I would recommend revisiting the subject in three to six months to see if the arguments for keeping the article remain solid. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Lugnuts. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether or not these attacks were linked, the fact that they all occurred on the same day and were committed by Takfiri Jihadists during Ramadan is in itself very important. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Hills[edit]

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

No references. We don't know if this place is WP:Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since nomination, five reliable sources have been added: Daily News (New York), SWA (magazine) (in Indonesian), Bloomberg Businessweek (one 2010 article in English, and a 2013 one in Indonesian), and Asia Report (published by The Straits Times). Based on their significant coverage, it's now clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Cemetery Luring Brides Lets Indonesians Land Helicopter at Plot". Bloomberg.com.
^ "Indonesia's rich are dying to get into the latest luxury club". The Sydney Morning Herald.
^ "Cemetery resort puts accent on fun in funeral". theage.com.au.
^ "A burial plot to die for near Jakarta". The Straits Times.

Keep - I integrated one of User:Northamerica1000's sources into the article, and rewrote the prose. It appears to be the top cemetery in Indonesia, and the fact that it even has English language coverage suggests its notability.Timtempleton (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2015 (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. While the discussion leans towards keeping, I don't think there is a consensus. There is a consensus however that it should be renamed and Mafia Capitale scandal seems to be the most popular name so will move it there, though this discussion should not prevent a move in the future. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Capitale[edit]

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

Nominal indication of notability from these sources. If they are...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of reliable sources that refer mafia organization known as Mafia capital present in Rome.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

References

^ "La Procura spiega il sistema-Roma: "È la 'Mafia Capitale', romana e originale"". http://www.rainews.it. Rai - Radiotelevisione Italiana. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Italy arrests 44 in mafia migrant centre probe". http://www.bbc.com. http://www.bbc.com. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Mafia capitale, Cantone: "Commissariare appalto da 100 milioni al Cara di Mineo"". http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Mafia capitale, il libro mastro del clan di Carminati e i "doppi" stipendi dei politici". http://www.rainews.it. Rai - Radiotelevisione Italiana. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Mafia Capitale, sequestrati beni a Salvatore Buzzi per 16 milioni". http://roma.corriere.it. Corriere della sera. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
^ "Mafia Capitale, protesta M5S al Comune di Roma: "Marino vattene". Grillo lancia Occupy Campidoglio". http://www.huffingtonpost.it. http://www.huffingtonpost.it. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Rome Mayor Marino under pressure after Italy arrests". http://www.bbc.com. http://www.bbc.com. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Mafia Capitale. Claudio Bolla, vice di Salvatore Buzzi: "Massimo Carminati socio della coop 29 giugno. La cena con Renzi costata 10mila euro". Grillo lancia Occupy Campidoglio". http://www.huffingtonpost.it. http://www.huffingtonpost.it. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "La decisione del ministro Orlando: 41 bis per Massimo Carminati". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Il boss di Mafia Capitale ai pm: "Se parlo cade il governo..."". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Mafia capitale, il sottosegretario all'agricoltura Giuseppe Castiglione (Ncd) indagato dalla procura di Catania"". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)
^ "Italy Junior Minister Investigated in Corruption Probe". http://www.nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

Daily increase in number and detail because the investigation continues. Do you want to deny the reality of the facts? Manox81 (talk) 6:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)— Manox81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment There is no such thing as putting a deletion discussion on hold. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name should be Mafia Capitale scandal, but it shouldn't exist as it is not yet notable enough. This article was deleted just recently on the Italian Wikipedia discussed here. The phrase seems to be a neologism defined here although the reliability of that source is unknown to me. What I get from the English sources and Google translation of Italian sources is there is no organization call "Mafia Capitale". "Mafia Capitale" is an investigation into Mafia infiltration in the government of Rome. The English sources mention arrests, but I do not see enough notability for an article. Perhaps a mention in the Crime in Italy article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make that Speedy Delete. This article has been deleted twice in the last few days. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

As long as the reasons for speedy deletion are not present in the current version (BLP, G12 don't seem to apply, and G4 was bogus as there doesn't appear to be any previous deletion discussion), then that is not relevant. Mr Potto (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there might be a copyright problem, depending on http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale - is that anything to do with Wikipedia? Is it a mirror? Mr Potto (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note One of the previous CSDs was for copyvio of that site. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two short sentences, so I've paraphrased and hopefully it shouldn't be a copyright problem now. Hopefully the deletion discussion can now continue based on the merits of the content itself. Mr Potto (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that site is a mirror anyway (see http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/?about - thanks @VernoWhitney:) It seems the G4/G12 speedy deletion was doubly wrong. Mr Potto (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop saying that there is' a problem of copyright also because http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/ copied the article on wikipedia.Manox81 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the deletion reasons at User talk:Barek#Mafia Capitale - if I could edit or comment within the log I would. I had meant to remove the G4 reason prior to deletion (was auto-populated from the speedy tag) and I was mistaken on the G10. That said, that prior version would have still been deleted due to BLP issues in that version of the article. However, the current version of the article does not repeat those BLP issues, so this AfD should focus on the notability and quality of the refs involved - the prior deletion reasons aren't applicable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it, I'll strike my speedy delete, but I still think it should be deleted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm with Richard-of-Earth after looking at the @it WP pages. This may be simply some journalistic hype designed to sell newspapers. The arguments against it in @it WP were that it isn't an understood phenomenon, it isn't clearly defined, and the whole thing may well blow over. If it gains substance, the article can then be created. LaMona (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Changing to weak keep. The name is indeed hype, but it seems to have stuck. This is an event more than a thing, so it would be clearer to call it "Mafia capitale scandal." LaMona (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a corruption scandal not yet notable enough. It's not a mafia despite its scandalistic name used by the Italian news media. --Enok (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enok see this source: [23] Manox81(talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mafia apitale is in the headlines of Italian press since the beginning of this year.Many notable sources avaibles.User:Lucifero4
Strong delete This article, as it stands, contains little or no useful information, and is mostly speculative. It is also contradictory. The sources refer to a scandal or an investigation by this name, but not an "organization - yet "membership of 5,000" is claimed. This same article was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. The reasons given (loosely translated) are as follows:

- The sources are considered to be tabloids by the Italian Wikipedia editors.

- The information on the investigation is protected data, and the sources would have to be leaked information or speculation.

- The content is not encyclopedic, it is news of questionable source and coverage.

- The existence of the organization is questionable, and any article should be written on the scandal, not an organization.

- The articles covering the event are considered sensationalist.

Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all personal considerations and not objective facts. [24] Manox81(talk) 22:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an organization?The defendents are accused to be part of an "associazione a delinquere di stampo mafioso".The sources are not leaked but part of the papers of the investigation that are on public domain at this time of the criminal procedure.User:Lucifero4

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename it to "Mafia Capitale affair" or "scandal". The subject is notable, but the trial did not start yet. The judges did not decide whether the organisation exists or not. Alex2006 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
From Manox81 (talk · contribs)'s sources: Rai News24, BBC, Il Fatto Quotidiano, Corriere della Sera, The Huffington Post, and Reuters (via The New York Times). These reputable sources clearly provide substantial coverage. I agree with a rename to "Mafia Capitale affair" or "scandal" per Alessandro57 and LaMona.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mafia Capitale to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2015 (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. User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) sums up the discussion nicely, his comment is worth a read. The consensus indicates that it may one day be possible to have this article, but because the claims can not (at this time) be independently verified, we have no option except to delete. The community (and even Jimbo, independently) have made it clear that any article that has the potential of harming someone or spreading misinformation simply can not exist here unless the facts can be verified by reliable sources. While there is a lot of passion and even some logic in the arguments to keep, they come up short in overcoming these fundamental problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primo-vascular system[edit]

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

Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bong-han. jps (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Fraud, every single source used is in blatant violation of not only WP:MEDRS but also WP:RS & WP:V" - that doesn't meet WP:CSD (arguably WP:CSD#G11 but not a blatant hoax), so it has to come here.

The problems are several. A finding that purports to support the refuted notion of "meridians" in acupuncture, with sources all tracking back to a single country, supposedly proposed in 1962 and not confirmed until half a century later, claimed to be involved in cancer metabolism and so on - if you set out to pile in as many red flags as you could, then you would probably end up with an article very much like this. It even includes excuses for the fact that nobody has ever spotted these so-called "bonghan ducts" in routine anatomical practice. This PubMed search shows that this is almost certainly pseudoscience at work. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was created by one of our acupunture editors. There are a couple of reviews on the topic in the acupuncture literature but this thing is not recognized by main stream anatomy. We however present it as fact so yes support delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we stop presenting it as fact. We describe what's published, we qualify it as, "Dr Bong-Han states this". That's better than leaving it as a hole and giving our readers nothing to go on, other than a web search and dropping straight into uncritical presentations of this theory. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not notable independent of him we can redirect it to him Kim_Bong-han#Primo-vascular_system Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is he the only one advocating this? Or are there others within the "meridian positive" community? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to lack any quality independent coverage, but appears to have some currency in fringe journals so may merit at most a brief mention in the acupuncture article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alexbrn and Docjames. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a medical expert, but it seems to me that there are better reliable sources that could be used to completely rewrite an acceptable article. springer published a whole book on this topic (doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0601-3). —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Springer book is already used as a reference in the article. Syl 01:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nahas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

delete - the right pubmed search for MEDRS sources is this one, which includes "reviews" as a filter. nothing. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the right pubmed search uses the correct terminology. 7 (seven) results Syl 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

which finds six in the non-wonderful Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies (hint: neither exists), and one that Thinks acupuncture can cure mental disorders. Crazy stuff. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, since you mentioned your prejudice about TCM, I can as well mention mine: for me, TCM overall has no curative efficaciousness and should not be allowed to call itself 'medicine', as overwhelmingly shown in clinical studies. But you do understand that it has no bearing on the existence or not of this PVS? Syl 14:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This field is recent. One problem that renders locating relevant publications difficult is that the terminology used is still fluctuating. You may wish to have a look at the update I have inserted below. Syl 12:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete, per Alexbrn. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Rewrite These scientists have had enough to show off to gather around 100 fellow scientists in 2010 for a symposium, and publish the contributions in a Springer book. [25] . Clearly the reality of the existence of this 'system' has not reached consensus among scientists. Allegedly because of the technical difficulties of its in-vivo characterization, and this may be taken as credible based on the alleged properties of these ducts. [26]

While I agree it could be a case of fraud given so little independent validation, I do not think the behaviour shown by this team indicates it : they seem to try to get other to independently replicate their findings. [27] So please keep in mind this could be genuine, and that its acceptance by mainstream may come when they overcome their technical difficulties and get independent replications from notable laboratories.

[UPDATE] According to the literature the existence of the PVS has been verified by several geographically distributed independent teams from different institutions. I feel this fact means fraud or hoax is overall unlikely. The trick to locate these reports is that they do not all use a consistent terminology. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.) Syl 12:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it rather a case of WP:FRINGE? Why not rename this page 'primo-vascular system theory' and rewrite it accordingly, to mirror the real scientific status of this theory as fringe science? Syl 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nahas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this article to implement what I have suggested above. Syl 11:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep If we cover Vani Hari and Piltdown Man, we can (and should) cover primo-vascular system and Bonghan ducts.

It does not matter if these things are real or not. Guy doesn't think they are, but that would be OR to say so. There are respected sources claiming they're real. So we state that and we reify just who said what. If there are reliable sources that contradict that, we report that side too. If they are overwhelming, then we report that conclusion just as we do for Lysenkoism. What we should not do is to either judge for ourselves if something is real or not, or else to delete it simply because it's wrong. That would be to fail our readers who are still looking for coverage of it and an explanation of why it's wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's not real, or that the article is written as if it is when it's not, the problem is the lack of credible sources discussing it in a way that allows us to inform (rather than misinform) the reader. There is a mass of analytical commentary about Lysenko and his hubris, and the evil done by him and in his name. Coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources seems to be negligible. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your second statement : the article was written in a way that could let believe the existence of PVS is a fact widely accepted in mainstream science. Whereas it is currently just the narrative of some specialists in some publications, some reputable. ~~It isn't controversial, either : I could find no criticism or counter-argumentation to this research, except~~ Chinese doctors who doubted of the interpretation of PVS as TCM meridians. Syl 12:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Would that count as reliable independent source? No, There Is No Conclusive Scientific Evidence for Visualization of Meridians at the Moment Syl 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So why do you think it's pseudoscience? What have you read that tells you this? If that's substantial, then that's the beginnings of the analysis you're looking for.

This is not woo-woo science. It's one woo at most. It's not chemtrails or Jenny McCarthy. There is not enough reason here for you to declare a hoax as WP:OR without such sources. You might not like that, it might not even be accurate, but it's how WP is constituted. Sometimes accuracy suffers for the sake of WP:V because we can't invent beyond available sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than 'woo' I would classify it as 'front-line' science. Stuff upon which scientists work, but there is yet no way to know if it will be ultimately accepted as 'the' scientific truth. It's basically in the same class as a topic like the multiverse theory, currently. Shouldn't it then be handled the same way by Wikipedia? Syl 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Front-line science is published in high impact journals such as Nature, not the junk journals specialising in CAM and obscure specialist technical journals where this appears. We are talking here about a complete new system of vessels in the human body. That's a pretty striking claim, especially as it emanates from 1960s North Korea without any independent Western replication. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taking a look at this, this was a somewhat big deal in Korea. I think deleting it for the English encyclopedia could be systemic bias. However, at the very least it should be in the appropriate article, i.e. acupuncture, by giving it a section or a few sentences in the right section. LesVegas (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

long OFFTOPIC discussion 1. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am afraid that the association made by some with the (in)famous TCM 'meridian' is muddling the debate. Together with the keyword 'cancer' I feel it triggers emotional reaction which disrupt the rational and balanced evaluation of the subject matter among some editors. If you look at the research, it's all about histology, cell biology and biochemistry. Mentioned possible applications are in the stem cell and nano-medicine areas. Advanced stuff, light-years from TCM.

I shall add that because some researchers claims they have found 'meridians' do not make it so, independently of the existence or not of PVS. This will be in any case matter of debate in the scientific community. After all, when discovering America Columbus thought he was landing in India. He was wrong. Syl 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is why mentioning this only in the acupuncture article would be making a disservice to Wikipedia readers : the gist of this research has actually extremely little to do in relation with acupuncture or TCM. Syl 10:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with that and everything to do with the fact that this is a complete purported additional circulation system that has supposedly passed unnoticed until now, and what notice it has, is almost exclusively form one group in Korea. There is no real independent coverage by anybody outside the original group, save for a few quacks who see it as a way of salvaging a refuted doctrine. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, open this link which is an article from the Department of Medicine of the University of Louisville, USA. This article reports an inordinate and unexpected amount of stem cells in primo-vessels. Do you see the word 'meridian' or 'acupuncture' anywhere in this article? Are these researchers 'quack,' do you think? And what do you think they studied, if not primo-vessels?

You seem to find hard to believe that scientists may discover something previously unknown! Do you think we already know everything there is to know? Do you want example of recent discovery we could never have imagined before they were made? Well, epigenetics is one. meningeal lymphatic vessels another.

Would you have read the literature, you would have seen PVS has indeed independent coverage outside Korea. Bona-fide researchers from bona-fide US institutions published on it, for example. I guess they would appreciate that you say they are 'quacks' just because they are exactly doing what you claim they are not: investigating these claims. Do you assert quackery just to sustain your point, in a kind of circular reasoning?

The PVS theory is scientific in the epistemological sense, since it is falsifiable. So, if (1) it passes the muster for scientificity, that (2) it has reached enough notability to warrant several laboratories to work on it - including 2 or 3 fully dedicated in South-Korea - that (3) publications have been published in reputable mainstream scientific outlets, including several independent experimental confirmations and, (4) that in all appearance it is not going to go away but rather take momentum since the rate of publication increases over time, (5) that you admitted above that the alleged relationship with the meridian theory is not a good reason to ignore it, in what name can Wikipedia decide to not inform its readers about it? Given that otherwise they may very well be informed elsewhere in lot less balanced and objective manner? That would be dangerous!

The very very recent discovery of the Meningeal Lymphatic Vessels (MLV) has already made it in Wikipedia, and has its own page. Based basically on only two articles from only two teams. For the PVS we speak of independent confirmations from at least 6 (six) different teams, who have published not a few number of articles now (some of them in Nature Publishing Group publications, if that's important). Tell me, on what objective criteria does the MLV deserve a page, and not the PVS? Because you just don't like it? Syl (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that perfectly illustrates the problem with this article. The article to which you link is in Nature, one of the highest impact scientific journals in the world. This is international headline news in the relevant scientific community. Meanwhile, the primo-vascular system, an even more far-reaching concept, is covered in a handful of half-century-old papers from North Korea, some acupuncture journals, and a couple of minor journals where it might well have slipped under the radar. As I said before, a claim this extraordinary which has been validate would make one hell of a splash. You just proved my point. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this an example of Juche? Are the comparisons with Lysenkoism even closer than I thought? Is this indigenously supported simply because it's indigenous, with a resultant lack of critical appraisal? I'd see this as even more reason to keep it, but it would change the viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed (South-)Korean national pride seems to have played a role in the insistence by the original discoverers on the relationship between PVS and TCM. Not only that, but they now hope to develop innovative medical treatments based on the discovery that these ducts are rich in stem cells; also PVS reaches inside cancerous tumours, while other vascular systems do not, so they hope to develop nano-vectors that exploit this discovery to make chemotherapy more efficient. If the South-Korean government invests money in this research, it is both for national pride and in the hope of financial gains - they may be important. As stated here.

Nonetheless publications record shows contributions are also coming from researchers located in the US as well.

BTW you seem to accept the idea that this research is invalid. What let you think that? Syl (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that two centuries of study of anatomy in major medical centres and academic institutions has not shown any signs of this, and its existence is promoted almost exclusively by proponents of the refuted concept of acupuncture meridians, you mean? Guy (Help!) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the first " two centuries of study of anatomy" almost everything in Western medicine was still unknown or plain wrong. Western medicine has a couple of millennia of history behind it, but it's only the last 150 years when it has had much more to offer than leeches. It might be wrong to believe in meridians but it's a worse error to think that everything is known. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, your first argument applies equally well to the discovery of Meningeal Lymphatic Vessels (MLV)? Guess what it is? A previously unknown vascular system in the brain. I wonder how many brains were sliced before somebody noticed this MLV, don't you?

MLV has only been published. PVS is described in anatomical literature since 10 years, it's not even 'new' - except maybe for you? With at least 6 replications versus 2, the existence of the PVS is scientifically more/better established than MLV. Do you realize that? So why handle it differently? Unless you have good sources stating otherwise, it should be handled the same. Syl (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your second argument is misled. Current PVS applied research is about stem cells and the application of nano-medicine to oncology. 'mainstream' stuff. Do you realize that? Why reject it because you don't like acupuncture, since acupuncture has nothing to do with the actual published confirmations?Syl (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is interesting in your reception of this research, and should warrant an analysis, is that your second argument is based on ideology : the original discoverer states he believes in TCM, so you seem to think that his work must be wrong, nonetheless the intrinsic merit of this research, or the fact that it is now branched out of anything 'traditional' to cutting-edge medical research. This reminds me of the rejection of Lysenkoism/Lamarckism in the West because it was 'Communist,' and that during the Cold War nothing good could come from 'The Evil East'. What you may not know is that this principled rejection of the possible effect of the environment on gene expression, based on ideology, probably actually delayed the discovery of epigenetics of at least 20 years. It actually hindered scientific progress.

Do you realize that for no good reasons your are trying to avoid the documentation in Wikipedia of a discovery that may prove very important for the development of regenerative medicine? Syl (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also stated 'what notice it has, is almost exclusively form (sic) one group in Korea' This statement is a gross misrepresentation of the reality, as I have shown all along.

Only in South-Korea there are, working on this: Cancer Biology and Immunotherapy, National Cancer Center, Cancer Immunology Branch, National Cancer Center & Department of Biological Sciences University of Ulsan, and this one. You see? 3 (three).

But I find it real interesting. You seem to think that because this discovery originates from East-Asia, it can not have any validity. Do you really think that South-Korean are less competent in science than the US or EU? Well, you really should think again. Just read the Wikipedia description of this country. It is stated there that 'South-Korea is ... ranked as the world's most innovative country in the Bloomberg Innovation Index, it is the world's most research and development intensive country' It's population is about the same as UK but the household income is before your country or mine. Actually seems to be a nice place to live in, don't you think? A place full of well-educated highly-competent brains... I begin to wonder if, unconsciously, behind this debate lies not so hidden the hideous specter of the end of the absolute intellectual domination of the Western world over the globe? Syl (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but.. On the whole I think we ought to cover this, per Andy Dingley etc, but making it far clearer that so far mainstream medicine thinks the PVS simply does not exist. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we had sources to establish that context, I would agree, but in fact "mainstream medicine" (i.e. medicine and medical science more widely) ignores it completely because there's no evidence it exists. We do have articles on non-existent medical topics (e.g. Morgellons) but in those cases we have substantial reality-based commentary to offset the woo. PubMed comes up blank. It scores as many hits as "adrenal fatigue", but unlike adrenal fatigue we have no reality-based sources we can use for context. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep material whether it's an independent page, Kim Bong-han or acupuncture is less urgent, but the references in accepted, mainstream journals that Sylvain.nahas (talk · contribs) provided above make it clear there is work on this topic that is not regarded as pseudoscience. I also found one.[28] There is definitely work to be done on presenting the quality peer-reviewed work and diminishing the weight to claims from alternative medicine journals. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDRS. A low quality primary source is not sufficient evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reason to describe PVS as a 'theory,' but not to not mention it. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS applies for 'medical' content, not theoretical biology/histology/cell biology/biochemistry. Publications reporting experimental works on the PVS are about fundamental research in general biology, that may have medical application in the distant future. Every publications on PVS that could be coined as 'medical' are of the hypothesis building nature. Currently PVS is a topic in biology, not medicine : it's one misunderstanding running around and muddling the debate : WP:MEDRS is simply not relevant. Syl (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - despite removals, eg: "It has been suggested that the primo-vascular system exists not only in and around cancerous tumors, but also within these tumors, and that they may play a role in cancer metastasis. This may allow the development of a new family of nano-drug.[2][9][16]" is still there. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

long OFFTOPIC discussion 2. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonsense?? Come on!

"Biology : natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms."

"Medicine is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease."

For example take the heart : it exists as an organ and its description belongs to anatomy and physiology - Biology , not medicine - as the Wikipedia article makes it clear. Right? It does have medical implications, and the study of these belongs to Cardiology, a branch of medicine. Syl (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study of the anatomy and physiological properties of the primo-vascular system, which consist the core of the peer-reviewed published literature, belongs to the field of Biology. Its possible medical implications belong to Medicine and I agree that it would fall under WP:MEDRS, but currently there is no such clinical research published besides some speculations in alt-med publications, so this is not even relevant. Possible medical applications are one motivation for this research, and the sentence you cite explains this : the South-Korean Gov. finances three labs. working on this and this is not only to trigger a debate on Wikipedia : they expect financial wins by developing stem cell applications... And stem cell medical research isn't alt-med, it belongs to cutting-edge mainstream medicine. Right?

Once medical implications actually becomes of relevance and has any significance, for example when new medical treatments are announced, this should be described in its own section. Since some scientists already use the PVS to theorize alt-med practices, this should be documented in Wikipedia, I believe. In its own separate articles, or in specific entries in the relevant articles. I trust Wikipedia to report on this in a balanced and objective manner that would protect readers from possible misuse of this research. But in any case both topics : (1) the Biology of the PVS and (2) its implication for Medicine should be carefully distinguished, as for any anatomical items.

I find it unbelievable that out of confusion wikipedia editors would consider censoring this bona-fide biological research. It borders on insanity, I feel. A comparison that comes to mind would be to not report the discovery of a new planet in the solar system, independently confirmed and published in peer-reviewed astronomical journals, out of fear that some may claim it is Niburu. Would that be Wikipedia? Syl (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring? Now you are headed off into the long grass. This is a "scientific advance" in North Korea, effectively unreplicated elsewhere other than by True Believers looking for something to support the refuted concept of acupuncture meridians. It is not covered anywhere in the reality-based medical literature. You can scarcely be unaware of the nature of North Korea and the skepticism that has to be applied to far-reaching but unverified claims emanating from that benighted country. You constantly argue from the point of view that this is a legitimate concept, but there is no credible evidence to support that position. Choosing not to include extraordinary claims emanating from a regime ruin by a tyrannical egomaniac with a long history of nationalistic propaganda, is not censorship. It's just good judgment. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: Those sources include "Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine", an oxymoronically titled journal which fails WP:MEDRS, the "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies", a prolific source of pseudoscience that also fails WP:MEDRS, a book by true believers promoting the existence of the concept, and two papers which are, by their own admission, speculative. There is no evidence that "bonghan ducts" exist. There is no credible evidence that the primo-vascular system exists. Crucially, the entire concept emanates form 1960s North Korea ad virtually everything published on it has a largely Korean authorship. The result is that we can't cover it neutrally because while it purports to be a science and medicine based topic, the world of science and medicine has nothing to say about it, because it fails the criteria by which they would consider it worth discussing. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, It's beginning to become painfully obvious you do not bother to read anything I wrote or the references I produced.

First, these laboratories are not located in 'North-Corea' but in South-Corea. I do not know in which world you live, but in the real world they are two very different countries. The former is a dictatorship, the later is a democratic developed countries. Its standard of living is even higher than the UK. Check it out, you will learn something.

Second, several several independent replications published in mainstream peer-reviewed publications have been already produced. 1 2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 9 Based on published proofs that means that the existence of this anatomical structure is more scientifically validated than the MLV, where there is no debate while acceptance is based on only two articles. You may not believe it, you may not like it, but according to mainstream science these ducts exist and you have them in your body. Syl (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, you have equally reputable source stating otherwise. Do you have them?

Because, that is the real crucial point, isn't it? Syl (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the core of this topic does not belong to Medicine but Biology. So it is not covered by WP:MEDRS. I have explained why at length above. Read it, please. Syl (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have done my due diligence and have read the references, papers, and recommended attachments. My opinion on the matter is the following: there is a single "research group" in Korea which is angling for funding in a pathological science fashion, publishing in out-of-the-way, obscure, corrupted, or predatory open-access journals on the subject and having limited mainstream success. They are attempting to get mainstream recognition of the subject, but haven't achieved that. This Korean group attempting to cure cancer with this particular scheme is of dubious ethical standard, but be-that-as-it-may, there is another issue to look at and that is the great white hope of acupuncturists that this is finally evidentiary basis for meridians. Actually, it is not clear to me whether the two groups agree with each other or not, but it is clear that this is alternative medicine at least. According to WP:PROFRINGE, our goal in seeking to establish notability is to look for independent sources that would corroborate the notability of the idea. This is where the subject fails. Depsite their best efforts, the Korean group has not been successful in getting citations outside of the peculiar acupuncturist community. They may yet succeed in convincing some skeptics to look more closely at their peculiar ideas, but until such time, Wikipedia cannot have a neutral article on the subject in the proper fashion because reliable, secondary or tertiary sources simply are not extant. We have no crystal ball, so it could be that in a few years this group or the acupuncturists gets someone independent of them to notice this weird idea and take it seriously. Until such time, Wikipedia is not the place to host content about this as we are ill-equipped to do the subject justice. jps (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

long OFFTOPIC discussion 3. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you aware of this publication? I believe this mainstream publication falsifies your statement that none 'independent of them ... noticed this weird idea and take it seriously' It is from the Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, USA. You'll notice it is pure fundamental biological research, nothing acupuncture oriented. They studied some properties of the primo-vessels. Or so they state : if these ducts do not exist, what did they mainstream scientists actually study, in your opinion?

Also, you stated 'there is a single "research group"' It is provably wrong : there are currently 3 (three) research groups in South-Korea working on this, as I have shown above.

I believe you stated the only valid argument to drop off coverage of the PVS topic : Wikipedia indeed seems to be ill-equipped to do the subject justice.

If I may, I commend you! You are the first to show having made any real effort to grasp the subject-matter. Syl (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this paper has a number of WP:REDFLAGs that inclines me towards not believing it is anything more than a fluke. One is that the open access journal under which it was published recently underwent an editorial management change: [29]. I'm not sure whether that happened before or after 2012, but in either case, the rather low impact factor: [30] and the lack of mainstream citations to the now three-year-old paper: [31] incline me towards the opinion that this was a student-project that was poorly supervised by the hematology faculty and they shopped around the journals until they got one published by a reputable publishing company that accepted it. None of the residents who are listed as co-authors are still at U. of Louisville, and I can't figure out where they went. My hunch is that when the residents moved on, their lack of big-name faculty backing at their new institutions prevented them from publishing follow-ups (or perhaps doing any research at all). Yes, this is speculation, but the obscurity of this topic provides no secure guidance in what to do, and the lack of citation to anything but acupuncture speculation makes me very queasy about accepting this as evidence of mainstream treatment. If the group had published additional papers in better journals, I'd be more inclined towards thinking that we might be seeing an interest from the broader community, but we don't seem to have that. I'm actually surprised that this sort of one-off publication isn't happening more often with the cutthroat publish-or-perish model currently in fashion among research-based funding models. That says something about peer-review working, I guess (though this is an entirely anecdotal observation on my part). In any case, I do think you're right that this paper is the strongest case that can be made for mainstream notice, but I think the case is still pretty marginal and inclines me towards delete even still. jps (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a lot of suppositions there, but I think your argument is overall valid. Syl (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that this kind of investigation is difficult. To do it properly would require about a month of time, a lot of e-mails and calls to journals, department heads, and the like, and it would all be rejected as original research by Wikipedia anyway, which is fine. I'm giving you my best guess on the basis of past investigations I have done into matters that were somewhat similar to this one. As for the apparently three separate Korean research groups, I"m not entirely convinced that they are independent of each other. I think they are all associated with Kwang-Sup Soh who is a pretty big fish in the wider acupuncture community. I see members of each of the groups have been connected in many ways to him. jps (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is : the findings described in this article have been later replicated in other studies - admittedly mostly by the Korean teams, and/or published in outlets you may consider not reputable. Their research currently is about stem cells, as you surely have seen in the papers. What do think of that? Syl (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I can't get over is that this is literally a single paper and the claimed replications are really, really dubious in comparison even to this questionable paper itself. What you want to see if you are truly witnessing a paradigm shift or a sea-change is a progression to more and more mainstream sources when an idea is really gaining traction -- not falling back solely to the acupuncture circles. It's as if they had some stem cells and didn't know what to do with them. There is something to be said for the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, but I am having a hard time seeing any stickiness here. jps (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also that these three groups may not be independent is a personal estimate. I am personally certain that there are two other research teams in South-Korea that have jumped in the PVS bandwagon and compete against Dr Soh's team. You will notice in their publications that they even do not use the terminology set up by Dr Soh : they use terms like 'Microscopic nodes and ducts' - That's why they were hard to locate at first. You will also notice that, objectively, we can not ascribe any obvious relationship between these teams and acupuncture. They seem to be pure mainstream. No? Syl (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be right, but again, a comparison to pathological science (and its poster child cold fusion) may be in order. In the case where there is money floating around, there is an incentive to get your hands on the funding and distance yourself from other groups who share superficial similarities but may be adopting one or two lines you find distasteful. That's kinda the way most of these schemes work, but I cannot say for sure that's what's happening because the sourcing is simply so thin. What I can say is that this is definitely not "pure mainstream" in the sense that the two other groups don't seem to be able to publish in the normal high-impact journals that would be the signal of "pure mainstream". Keeping an eye on the situation would be worthwhile, but I suspect we'll need to see some major scientific journalism press and some serious papers done on the claims itself before we can be certain that this isn't anything more than really out-of-the-way proposals that may just disappear as people move on, research funding dries up, or nothing comes of the research. On the other hand, it could be an amazing new breakthrough. Too soon to tell and the start of the work is definitely less-than-auspicious. Having seen many such ideas come down the pipe, I would be willing to bet money on "no", but Wikipedia has to make the decision now whether it is article-worthy. Still can't see my way towards a keep, but I have no prejudice against recreation once (or really IF) the mainstream recognition happens. jps (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I notice is that we are reduced to do guess work there. I can only concur with you on your assessment of the situation. I still think this topic is notable enough to be documented in Wikipedia, though. Somebody has rewritten it in a way that I find Okay for now.

@jps I appreciated you introduced a bit of sanity in this debate. I was really beginning to despair of Wikipedia as a project. Thank you! Syl (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never take it as a good sign when we're reduced to guesswork, but as is often the case in WP:FRINGE topics, that tends to be the devolution. Nevertheless, I look forward to any new sources that may help elucidate the situation. This is one of those situations where Wikipedia is on the bleeding edge and I don't really think it should be there. jps (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep new version An editor has rewritten the PVS page in such a tone that I actually worry for his hypothalamus. Nonetheless, trusting that factual information and references have been kept by said editor, if this could build consensus that this last version presents no danger to induce readers into believing in invalid medical claims while still fulfilling the mission of Wikipedia to inform readers on notable topics, I would be personally content with this page as it is now - for the time being, pending further potential developments of the publication record as per jps. Syl (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Sylvain.nakas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Duplicate !vote. Editor needs to either combine this with their previous !vote, with only one option highlighted, or strike the former entirely.[reply]

long OFFTOPIC discussion 4. Closer can consult if they like, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guilty as charged! The problem with my current version is that many of the characterizations, while correct from my research, are essentially original in the sense that sources other than Wikipedia haven't identified the obvious connections between the proposal and acupuncture, for example. WP:Plain as the nose on your face isn't quite yet an approved policy for writing and I still think that it would be better to have no article rather than one that drips with innuendo (because there is no independent work done) or cagy attribution. Still, the current version is better than the previous one which uncritically claimed that this thing existed. jps (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is essentially crystal ball given the publication record. The problem with deleting this page is this topic has already begun to reach notability in the alt-med hypersphere, as you surely noticed, and this will only take momentum. People are going to google for 'primo-vascular system'. If Wikipedia removes this page, they will not be able to find a balanced treatment that set the record straight, and will be left to refer to content that will be a lot less critical.

Some editors stated they worry for people taking health decision based on the PVS theory. If they do, they should admit that it is better that WP critically covers this topic than not. Syl (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find your version does a good job at that. Syl (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the compliment, I'm less enthusiastic about my version than you, sad to say. While noble, I think your preference for keeping the page leans dangerously close to righting great wrongs. It would be fantastic if Wikipedia was empowered to carefully identify new ideas and contextualize them properly, but, alas, WP:NPOV only allows a combination with WP:RS and WP:V rather than some preferable expert-based or research-review model. Your philosophy of helping the curious find the best content about obscure topics is perhaps better embodied at Rationalwiki, and that website would probably do a better job on this subject given its wider editorial remit (I encourage a port of this article over there, in fact). The problem as I see it is that Wikipedia cannot really function as an effective one-stop-shop given its "accept all comers" approach. For example, if we get some PVS-believers coming in here, they will rightly demand that we identify sources rather than provide accurate commentary, and the problem is that the sources are all one-sided! That's basically the reason that Wikipedia's WP:PAG developed the way they did (WP:NOR, for example) — it's impossible to test for which editors are blinkered and which editors are neutral just given the ability of a person to point their browser and hit "edit this page". Certainly, I can point you to more than a dozen individuals out in cyberspace who think that I am the most skewed and horrible content guardian on this site in spite of your very kind praise for the work I've done today. jps (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your assessment, you will no doubt admit it, is a narrative basically based on worst-case guesses. These teams in Korea might be swindlers, the team in the USA might have been badly-mentored students, and so on. Well, this might be true, but the opposite can be equally true : these professional researchers might be intellectually honest, and then these ducts exist. I lean on this later interpretation, you lean on the former - but it is really based on prejudices for us both, isn't it?

At which threshold will you accept this research for genuine, since the next confirmation might be (insert suspicion here) , etc... When do you stop? Syl (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your best-case scenario is a Nobel-prize-worthy accomplishment! Unfortunately, there are far more instances of cranks than true geniuses with stakes as high as this. For every Alfred Wegener there are hundreds if not thousands of Trisectors. Granted, most trisectors don't get published in the equivalent of Experimental and Molecular Pathology, but enough do that it makes me apply a heavy Bayesian prior probability against the extraordinary claims. The threshold I think that is appropriate is publication in the top-tier journals by multiple, unassailably independent groups (not just nominally independent as in the case of the three Korean teams). jps (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So please let take the example of the meningeal lymphatic vessels. A new vascular structure in the brain is a pretty extraordinary claim as well, since it seems unbelievable that nobody have noticed it before (same argument as for PVS.)

Its acceptance is based on two only publications. One in top-tier (Nature), the other one in a scientific publications of the same level as the one works on PVS has been published. So if I apply your muster it does not pass and should be removed from Wikipedia, am I wrong? Especially if I feel in skeptical mood and am willing to make worst-case estimate and suspect that one of this team has... well you know what I mean. Syl (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:TOOSOON argument should always be a consideration for something that is sourced primarily to a Nature article. However, in this case, the press that was received regarding the "discovery" I think forces the subject to pass the WP:GNG standard. Is there any comparable press about PVS? I'd be very interested to see some. jps (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you looked at the published research, you have noticed that they published not a small amount of work on experimental techniques. They seem to try hard to document their research gear so that other laboratories can reproduce their work. I find that for fraudsters this would be taking a lot of risk : the risk to be called out by a team that would try replication which would fail. For me it is a good indication that they are of good faith. Don't you think? Syl (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but, again, this is where the comparison to cold fusion seems apt. The reason they need so much documentation of experimental technique rather than results is because the evidence is so marginal. So emphasizing proper techniques so that they can see the N-rays is going to be the dominant form of discourse. jps (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that comparing this research and cold fusion is risky. It does not necessarily transpose. The later is now 20 years old, the former has begun to be actively researched only from 2010. It appears to be technically very difficult to do accurate calorimetry measurement and the numbers are not easy to interpret, while with the right staining technique the PVS can even be "shown." I expect you have seen the various photos of these ducts they have published? Syl (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first description of the primo-vascular system has been published in The Anatomical Record, which, I have checked, is a peer-reviewed journal. The good thing with anatomy is that you 'see' things, and some PVS ducts are even big enough to be seen with the naked eyes properly prepared. And I do expect the various reviewers, who certainly belonged to the best specialists of the USA and elsewhere, to have had enough professional acumen to recognize if a 'new extraordinary' structure belongs to the bestiary of known stuff, or is actually new. They were probably able to do that only by throwing an eye on the data provided to them, except that I suspect they have done more than a cursory inspection. Don't you think? Would you say that all of this is just photo-shopped and the peer-reviewers under opium?

Wouldn't you say that for scientific fraudsters, repeatedly publishing photos falsely labeling an anatomical structure in peer-reviewed journals is about the dumbest thing to do? Very very dangerous? I can imagine less dangerous things to do, like making up numbers. Syl (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "B" journal for The Anatomical Record [32] invited authors on the basis, it seems, of a another paper it accepted in 2002 that was written by Helene Langevin, an acupuncturist in the employ of U. of Vermont. How that paper got through peer-review is a mystery, except to say that there continue to be a number of acupuncturists on the Editorial Board of The Anatomical Record including Changman Zhou This does not bode well for the claim of mainstream adoption. "Peer review" in such instances generally means finding a sympathetic reviewer who won't reject your claims with a laugh. Cold fusion was debunked within months of its big splash moment.

I think it is pretty difficult to say that the photos that published claiming to be PVS are unassailably examples of new anatomical features. I'm not sure whether the researchers know they've been duped or if they're trying to pull a fast one, but if you have a friend who is a doctor, try showing the pictures to them and see what they say. I imagine something similar to the eye-rolling that happens when you show most physicists a plot of the excess heat from cold fusion "power cells" will occur. Is this dangerous fraud? Absolutely. But there is something of a money-train going on here in many different countries where governments allocate funds to "study" acupuncture even though we know it doesn't work and so researchers have to come up with increasingly peculiar arguments and, yes, fraud, to justify their work (see the SBM link I gave with the pipe "a mystery"). jps (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's just an alternative narrative based on guess work and worst-case estimate, you will surely admit. You just have no proof of all that.

You even begin to sound like my friend of mine that believes in a world plot led by 'Illuminatis,' only with Acupuncturists. I am surprised. Syl (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since various of these photos were published in several peer-reviewed journals, you're narrative must not hold for one only, but for all. Do you believe that plausible? Syl (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit hole is deep, indeed, when it comes to acupuncture because CAM is big-time-bucks. We're talking billions of dollars a year. The photos you're referencing were not really published in several peer-reviewed journals. They were published in several journals that appear to me at a glance to be likely to be compromised due to a well-known issue with obscure journals: infiltration. Think about how the editorial boards would operate: the board is basically all volunteer and if you happen to get an acupuncturist, all the papers relevant to that subject would end up being passed to that one editor. The editor in turn would then assign reviewers who were sympathetic (you better believe Zhou is not asking Edzard Ernst to review any papers that pass his way). This is a known bug in the peer-review system, and it isn't only found in the context of acupuncture. Cold fusioneers have also been known to take advantage of it when they got one of their own on the editorial board of Naturwissenschaften. It's not "conspiracy" as much as it is just something that requires care. You can't just blindly accept everything that is published as being reliable. That peer review works at all is startling, as I intimated above. jps (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jps This article on PVS : Adult Stem Cells from the Hyaluronic Acid-Rich Node and Duct System Differentiate into Neuronal Cells and Repair Brain Injury is cited by this one from an altogether completely different team :Molecular and phenotypic characterization of CD133 and SSEA4 enriched very small embryonic-like stem cells in human cord blood. published in 'Leukemia: official journal of the Leukemia Society of America, Leukemia Research Fund, U.K'. This team is at the National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH) in Mumbai, India.

Is stem cell research also "acupuncture", do you think? is this team also part of the scheme?

Or isn't the alternative narrative, that these ducts really exist and the research on it has been fruitful since it begins to be cited in completely independent specialized literature, more plausible? Syl (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking into the stem cell angle and I think what's going on is that certain groups have no idea what to do with stem cells. My impression is that this is what's going on with the U. of Louisville group and this Mumbai group on the basis of some attachment to the Korean's claims. Note that there is no independent confirmation in high-level journals. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jps If I understand your narrative about PVS well, you think that all these researchers, dozens of PhD, are not actually working? That they basically make up something to receive grants from their Gov., buy expensive laboratory gears that they never fire up, and that dressed in white coat all day they play solitaire on their brand-new computer, hoping to have a go with the pretty secretary - except time to time organizing a brain-storming to try and invent something half-plausible that their accomplices in the science publishing business can let publish? Is it what you are explaining?

Corrupt fields are corrupt. CAM is big time and there are ~~hundreds~~thousands of ~~people~~professionals working in it. Many of them are true believers. I have no way of knowing which is which. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to get a PhD, I might as well do real work after while. Especially living in 'the most innovative country in the world' that is South-Korea, were chances to get to work on something worthy of my talent and where I could bring a real contribution to the state of the world so that I might get my little share of immortal fame are very good. Wouldn't you?

The idea that PhDs are all capable of changing the world is a fantasy. Take it from someone who has one. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In these articles on PVS, when not PhD in specialized fields authors are medical doctors. Becoming a MD is not easy; to get through one need a lot of motivation. This motivation usually wake up during childhood and is called a 'vocation' - stated as 'I want to save people's life.' But according to your narrative about PVS, these doctors would basically give up their vocation and the hope to bring better conditions to the world, and get into the scheme of 'doing nothing all the day and faking work'? Syl (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no doubt that many doctors who go down these trails are extremely well-meaning and think they are doing right. I cannot distinguish which ones are the charlatans and which ones are the ones who are simply misguided. That's as far as my abilities go. All I can do is identify the treatment that a subject has received. If I was advising a med student, I would definitely encourage them to steer clear of this subject regardless of what they thought of it. jps (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Lets sum up the established facts, and then the alternative narratives on them.

A. Sticking to what have been published in mainstream only, and only to that, we elucidate the following sequence of events:

- 1. In 2005, a team, admittedly with beliefs in TCM, publishes experimental work stating they have discovered ducts.

They dissected animals, looked hard, found a previously undocumented anatomical structure.

To date this team continues to work on that. The South-Korean Gov. has enough hope of scientific and financial fallouts to finance this team.

- 2. In 2010, 100 or such scientist gather from all over the world to brain-storm about these ducts.

Some of them supposed they may contain interesting stem-cells.

- 3. In 2012 a team in the USA discovered that these ducts are full of interesting stem-cells.

They dissected animals, extracted these ducts, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content.

- 4. Between 2012 and begin 2015, two other teams in Korea published experimental work on these ducts confirming the other findings.

They dissected animals, extracted these ducts, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content.

- 5. In 2015, a team in India published stem-cell experimental work building on the previous published works.

They dissected animals, extracted things, put them in lab. gears, and analyzed the content.

B. One narrative about this sequence of events is the following:

- 2005: The first team lied. They did no actual work, just making up stuff.

- 2010: These 100 or such scientists were all fooled.

- 2012: The team from the USA was just students without supervision making-up stuff.

- 2012-2014: These two other teams from Korea do not even exist. It's all made up stuff.

- 2015: Logically, the team from India must be making up stuff as well.

Motivation analysis: corruption or laziness for every single participants

Personal risk analysis: Very high. Being called out in public (for East-Asian, it's worst than death). Losing any retirement rights. Getting in jail is not excluded.

Assumptions underlying this narrative:

- These ducts do not exist.

- These highly-trained professional scientists do no real work. They are idle all day.

- 'Hundreds of PhD' are highly corrupted.

- To get able to publish, these scientists have accomplices everywhere in the science publishing industry.

- All other specialists that have happened to check this work are either incompetent or corrupted.

Complexity of the narrative: You'll admit it: it's a good plot. Better than a Hollywood film. It's not even a novel, it's a saga.

C. Another narrative about this sequence of events runs as follow:

- 2005: The first team actually found a new kind of ducts.

- 2010: These 100 or such scientists were wondering about these ducts.

- Some of them supposed they may contain interesting stem-cells.

- 2012: The team from the USA actually found really interesting stem-cells in these ducts.

- 2012-2014: Two other teams, independent from and in competition with the first one, begun to replicate previous work, confirming the presence of really interesting stem-cells in these ducts.

- 2015: The team from India begun to work on these really interesting stem-cells in these ducts.

Motivation analysis: passion for their work, hope to find new cure for disease, hope to win fame and maybe even Nobel Prize, possible financial fall-out.

Personal risk analysis: well, just finding nothing interesting in the end. Standard research risk.

Assumptions underlying this narrative:

- These ducts exist.

- These professionals just do their job.

Complexity of the narrative: Simple. Boring, even.

D. Questions

- Applying Bayesian probability, which narrative is the more likely?

- Applying Occam's razor principle, which narrative has the fewest assumptions?

- Applying motivational analysis, which narrative has the more chance to correspond to human psychology?

- Applying motivational and personal risk analysis, which narrative is the more likely to lead to personal gains for the participants? Syl (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your outline, you have attributed a deceptive motive where I have attributed none. You have identified many "scientists" which are not necessarily "scientists" in the proper sense. You also seem to have a higher opinion of the abilities and motives of people who publish in low-quality journals than I do. jps (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any ad persona, unwarranted and unfair. I apologize.

Why do you think that Leukemia is 'low-quality'? It is subject to the same editorial exigences than any other Nature publication, no? Syl (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's of "low quality" compared to every other journal cited, but it is not subject to the same editorial exigences as the flagship journal. Rather, it is simply published by Nature Publishing Group on behalf of two charities who name the editorial board in manners that are in line with their particular philosophies. It definitely has a higher impact factor than any of the others, but it is a second-tier journal at best, and the reference is secondary to that journal as well. The stem cells angle is a weird one, I absolutely admit. But looking in to the normal stem cell literature I see bupkis on PVS. Single-issue mentions that appear in obscure papers happens from time-to-time. It's the nature of the beast. I appreciate the effort, though, absolutely. Just don't think we've gotten to the "breakthrough" outcome which is the gold standard. jps (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in this world only you and the others editors that stated their incredulity find that "extraordinary", along with the original discoverer.

From a biological point of view it belongs only to the 'quite interesting' category. The discovery of MLV was a lot more "extraordinary" because it broke a long standing dogma in Biology, namely that the brain is circulatory independent of the rest of the body. But this? It breaks no dogma. It is just an ubiquitous stuff that currently has no known physiological function. No big deal, in fact, a priori.

Set aside these claims from TCM people that in any case will have to stand under scientific scrutiny, that is - and your, personal, dispite of them. Syl (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a biological system newly discovered? Are you saying that isn't an extraordinary claim? jps (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I say that. Since the 20 years I have studied Biology in University, I have seen so much discoveries, and even several 'dogmas' broken, that this discovery is just another one. Wouldn't you say that the discovery that (some) dinosaurs had actually feathers, bird-like heart and warm blood a lot more 'extraordinary'? Short before I entered the University, they were thought to be reptilian. Cf. the velociraptor: only a few years separate this representation vs this one, both according to the scientific knowledge of the time. Now we say: 'birds are dinosaurs.' Syl (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a non-innovative reference work. Before the discovery of archaeopteryx, there were claims that birds were more closely related to dinosaurs than other reptiles, but this was a WP:FRINGE opinion. It turned out to be correct, but we needed strong confirmation of that before it was accepted. Had Wikipedia been around at that time, it would have been irresponsible to push this idea without the levels of sourcing that it eventually came to enjoy. Patience is my call. If these people are correct then there will surely be other independent groups confirming it, press junkets, funding, etc. It's WP:TOOSOON to say whether this is going to happen and, although I remain skeptical, I'm not closed-minded. I just require extraordinary evidence which we haven't yet gotten. We don't yet have our archaeopteryx. jps (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand this policy. Thank you for explaining this with so much care.Syl (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You state the 'stem cells angle is a weird one.' Isn't it because you are structurally unable to accept that these guys really have discovered something, or so you sound to me? If you consider the narrative I suggested, it all makes sense, you'll admit it.

Here, another independent confirmation in mainstream, BTW. This time from a team in Seoul. That makes four different teams in Korea. It adds up, isn't it? Evidence for an Additional Metastatic Route: In Vivo Imaging of Cancer Cells in the Primo-Vascular System Around Tumors and Organs

You stated it is 'pathological science,' but that's even not true. Everybody seems quite able to find these ducts, once explained how to do. Syl (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cancer curing claims are part of this argument. Run, don't walk, to your nearest oncologist and ask them if they believe that this literature helps them identify PVS's existence. You seem to be arguing that everyone who has looked for them has found them. Might I suggest that these Korean groups decided ahead of time that these systems exist and that's what has led them to find them? Fan death is also considered real by large groups of doctors. jps (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also learned via an e-mail today that the lead author in the U. of Louisville study referenced above is connected with the Mumbai team, incidentally. jps (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also found connections between all of the Korean teams. The authors on each of the papers are part of the Nano Primo Research Center. jps (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Is it how you judge scientific claims? Did you even try to read these papers, I wonder?

I think you are trying to find at all costs a narrative that could throw doubts on these research, out of dislike for the discoverer. Isn't it? Syl (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay? Your responses seem oddly defensive suddenly, and it doesn't make sense. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and if you can find something convincing let me know. So far, I've found some problems with your claims of independence. I'm not surprised that I found such things (it's typical in WP:FRINGE) cases but, believe me, this is not personal. jps (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reacted defensively because of course I would not like to have been fooled if it turned out to all be a prank. I admit that if your claims are true this throws doubt on this research. Care to document it? Syl (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive permission to share the e-mail I received, but if I have some time later I'll try to see if I can identify connections between the first author on the U. of Louisville paper and the authors of the Leukemia paper via the web since I have some additional clues. As for the Korean groups, try nosing around http://aict.snu.ac.kr/eng/m02/?mode=02_01_02 and doing some cross-correlative work with the authors of the different Korean papers. It's all there. jps (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would that indicate, in your opinion?

The problem is that you state they are related, but not in which way. I think this could be normal that researchers interested in investigating something connect, don't you think? It would not necessarily indicates anything wrong, right? Syl (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell in which way they are related. It is possible they are all on the up-and-up hoping to convince the rest of the world that they have made a huge discovery and are associated because birds of a feather flock together while maintaining intellectual and academic independence. This is possible, but it is very easy when researchers are associated with each other to lose the skepticism that is required for high-quality confirmations. Even if these people truly believe they are on to something (and I have no reason to believe they don't, to be sure), this can also be a case of blinkered and credulous acceptance of a red herring, made more possible because they are surrounded by like-minded and similarly inclined researchers. The whole point of independent validation is that someone else who is in no way associated should be doing the work of making sure the work is reproducible because the human elements -- connections between researchers and the like -- can easily get in the way. This is true of ALL research, not just this work. We require independence to check for the problem of confirmation bias. When I see evidence that independence isn't there, that doesn't mean they are WRONG. It just means that we have to evaluate the WP:REDFLAG as a red flag and Wikipedia tends to default to delete in those scenarios until such time as the independent research does verify and then the idea is to create the article. jps (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is indeed Wikipedia policy, I would say it is not really worth investigating further, because I am pretty certain that until now these labs operated by direct horizontal technology transfer. Think about it : evidencing these ducts needs 'new' experimental operating methods. A lab. interested in investigating these claims could learn this through published literature if it is detailed enough, but the most efficient way to master it is to send a member of the team to train in situ. On the other hand, that does not mean that the knowledge brought back by this team member is not subject to critical scrutiny by the other team members. From the course of events I have reconstituted I am quite sure that's what they all have done, so that you found connections is not surprising, actually, if by 'connection' you mean trace of the presence of a team member.

IMO that's also why they are so intent in publicly documenting the operating procedures

Also, there is a counter argument to this research that nobody in this discussion thought to bring up, namely that these ducts could be experimental artifacts. They actually thought about this, and investigated it : they have done 'risk analysis' and documented it. That's a sure sign that they are serious, IMHO.

You may find interesting to read this

My estimate is that you should be prepared to recreate this page. :-) I am really curious to see how it all unfold. Syl (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are right. It would be exciting to have an example of an acupuncturist wittingly or unwittingly coming across a system that has broader medical relevance. Maybe even Nobel Prize worthy relevance. Who wouldn't want such things? However, I'm not going to be convinced by what essentially amounts to conference proceedings that this is likely to occur. I have seen this in many other areas and the WP:REDFLAGs seem obvious to me. That manifestly does not mean that it is impossible for these people to be right. They would be the exception rather than the rule and Wikipedia is a crude tool that tends towards not being able to treat exceptions very well until well after the fact. I suspect if re-creation of this article becomes necessary, it will attract more than just you and I nattering on. We'll have many different editors curating at that point and it will be beyond our own little discussions and speculations. I hope you are right. It would be very fun to see a topic that stars out as fringe become revolutionary. We'll see! jps (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)begin as[reply]

To be sure to understand your line of thought, I have three further questions.

The conference proceedings you are referring to date back 2010 and outline a research program; the papers published recently that have been at the core of this discussion are reports of experimental work which have been published in peer-reviewed journals : why do you state these last papers essentially amounts to conference proceedings?

The Sept 2011 work you linked is what I'm referring to. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which relevance does it have if the original discoverer is an acupuncturist? The research published in mainstream concerns essentially stem-cell related histological stuff; I have hard time to see any relationship between this and the practice to put needle under the skin? (From what I gathered from his bio., he would be more accurately described as a biophysicist, BTW.)

The relevance is my prejudicial concern over confirmation bias. That's not to say that is absolutely what's going on, just that I find it more than plausible. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as we elucidated, this is too soon to reach any conclusion. I think that only time will tell. They are not going to stop researching, by all appearance. Syl (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, epistemological paradigm shift do indeed begin as fringe, isn't it? (I am not asserting this research is such an instance, mind you) Syl (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. As a rule, though, you cannot identify them properly until after the fact. jps (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that confirmation bias is very unlikely in the context of histology. It's not like these research works where you have to verify hypothesis by interpreting numbers. In this case, it's more like verifying that there is indeed cold beer is the fridge. Syl (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read about n-rays and polywater. jps (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read. Interesting, thanks. Syl (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, polywater was caused by a lack of risk analysis (considering alternative hypothesis). I think these teams have performed it, for example here, but it should be more internationally scrutinized. As for N-rays, it was because in these early time measurements was done by human intervention, and I do not know if the protocols these teams apply are subject to the same kind of risks. Also, you know that a 'thread-like structure floating freely in lymphatic stream' is a highly persistent thing once evidenced - SCREAMING IN THE FACE even, as you might has gathered from the photos available. Not like the N-ray.

Anyway, if your point is that this research lacks independent replication, I do agree and I think they are very well aware of that. Syl (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that if this photo actually tells what she tells, that if all other evidences actually tell what they tell, the PVS story is actually the reverse of n-rays? In the n-rays case, scientists were seeing things while they were not, in the primo-vascular system case, scientists were not seeing things while they were. That would be highly ironic, isn't it? Syl (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

quick note, I voted delete above, and the article has been worked over now to include several WP:PRIMARY sources and has all kinds of poor content. It is actually worse now than it was before, and I am just confirming my !vote to delete. This is science that has only been published and reviewed by a small circle of scientists, publishing in low quality journals. (i just re-checked the pubmed search - I was hoping to find even one independent review in a decent mainstream journal that we could hang an article on, and there are none). I would be open to this article being re-created when there are better sources but there just aren't sufficiently good ones now. This subject simply fails WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent, secondary sources to establish notability as a stand-alone article. Yobol (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2015 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav kumar[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't notice the article writer removing my prod of it. The given sources are only primary interviews on sites which do not seem to meet WP:RS. The correctly-capitalised Gaurav Kumar was salted last year after years of speedy deletions; unclear if this is a common name or the same unremarkable blogger subject. --McGeddon (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Anar chyte 05:29, 28 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rememoried[edit]

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

No indication of importance, might be WP:TOOSOON for an article. --Anar chyte 07:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this short Hardcore Gamer coverage, but nothing beyond that. Sam Walton (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic ultimately lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had a few hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, but not enough to be meaningful or "significant":

Article mentioned by Sam
http://www.justadventure.com/2013-05-20-21-09-14/2848-rememoried-a-surrealist-explorative-first-person-adventure
http://www.gamershell.com/news_175665.html

There is not enough coverage to write a dedicated article and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, the page is a complete copyvio with every sentence extracted from the associated references —SpacemanSpiff 18:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portea Medical[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional. associations with notable hospitals do not make a specialised healthcare agency notable. Having notable founders does not make anything notable--some of what notable people do is of course notable, but not everything.

As for promotionalism,repeated use of "comfort of their own place and homes (Rate 600/ day)" ; and a history section discussing in the traditional pr manner the personal experiences of the founders with respect to their family membets. Only press agents write such stuff, DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page talks about homecare and in-home services because it is the truth. There are references listed as evidence. Would request to suggest edits if the page is violating wiki rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandanaPortea (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 26 June 2015 (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 – czar 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SiN: Wages of Sin[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for being unsourced for over 8 years, and I couldn't significant coverage in multiple, third party reliable sources either. (There are a bunch of false positives containing both "wage" and "sin" out there though.) Attempted to just redirect the article, but it was contested without any real rationale other than it should be discussed at an AFD. Discussing the article itself, its a complete failure of the WP:GNG, and has been for 8 years. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination rescinded. I didn't find any sources in my brief search, but I forgot to factor in that it was a game from the 90s, so there's print sources and archived sources. I also thought that the GameSpot review was a user blog, but apparently they make their non-current staff look like user bloggers after they leave. Didn't know that until nomination either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some hits, but I have to add on "Activision" with everything. A look through Google Books with the following search terms (SiN: "Wages of Sin" Activision) brings up some coverage in books and the initial blurbs from the basic search field shows that there was magazine coverage for the games. They don't show up when you click on them, but that's because the snapshot view is so limited. Personal Computer Magazine has this in the preview mode: "Wages of Sin An add-on pack for Activision's SiN first-person action game. Wages of Sin fixes many bugs in the original and provides 17 new missions of fast -paced shoot-'em-up action." and Computer Gaming World has "Fortunately, Activision has achieved Ml the latter and come up with a great addition to the shooter SIN. Unlike other mission packs, WAGES OF SIN (WOS) also manages to play off and add to the SIN storyline." I also found two reviews on the Internet, so I'm leaning towards a keep with this one. I'll see what else I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really enough content to write an entire article around it though? It's an expansion pack to SiN - it seems like it would be better to have a redirect to a dedicated subsection on the SiN page. Sergecross73 msg me 10:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no true objection to that. Most of the content here is sort of fancruft for the most part. That's part of the reason I've hesitated - there are reviews but I can't entirely justify having an entire article. It's not the most overwhelming expansion that was ever released, that's for certain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Covered by multiple third party reliable sources. [33][34][35][36][37][38] - hahnch e n 09:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to Hahnchen's sources above, some more reviews (some contemporary): [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. There are also supposed to be reviews in Computer Games Magazine and there's a Finnish review from Pelit behind a paywall. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:21, 27 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adware.W32.ExpDwnldr[edit]

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

I don't see anything that suggests this particular Trojan horse virus was notable, I don't think we need an article for every trojan virus ever created, only the ones receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the articles in Category:Trojan horses probably don't meet notability guidelines. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no coverage, much less significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 03:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Completely non notable trojan. Safiel (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (virus/trojan) article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. The brief description on the Panda antivirus site is on its own not sufficient to establish notability, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of Darkness[edit]

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

Not enougn coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything and unless there are sources in another language, I'll have to lean towards a delete. The EL section has two TV spots, but those by themselves aren't really enough to sway my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 26 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anamika P S[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. I could find no refs to establish notability. Please add refs if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Lung Association[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable; it seems it was founded in 1900 and this says "Canada's first national voluntary health organization" and this says "country's national NGO dealing with tuberculosis". My total search are this (nothing significant, mostly minor mentions), this (results start to fade page 6), this, this and this. The current version is unacceptable and was actually worse here. If this is notable and can be improved, I'm willing to but I'm not sure if this all amounts to notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to other articles on health charities. Could use better references but notable enough. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unfortunately it's self-referenced and somewhat promotional, but it's notable. Long entry on it in the Canadian Encyclopedia [45] —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:ORG; there is coverage in many reputable newspapers (e.g. The Ottawa Citizen, National Post, and The Gazette), however, subscription or access is needed. Esquivalience ^t 15:47, 26 June 2015 (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greyson Fletcher[edit]

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

I'm not sure if he's notable (he's not definitely not notable as an actor but I'm not entirely sure about skateboarder) and my searches here (13newsnow.com calls him "iconic" but aside from that, there's not much), here, here, here (two results) and finally a few with browser. All in all, I'm not sure if he's notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A search for his name in Highbeam brings up a lot of references to the TV show, so he is known for that. If this was all he was known for then I'd endorse a redirect to the show's article, but there is just enough coverage for his skateboarding career to where this just barely scrapes by notability guidelines. I have no issue with this getting redirected to the main show's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Would you comment? Do you feel the recent improvement is enough? I don't think so as there doesn't seem to be much notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability seems to be mainly as the son of his notable father. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AllahDad Bohyo[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable poet with my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing and this has existed since January 2007 with no improvement and this suggests it was maybe a personal essay. The current sources are basically two images and two blogs (with no attempt to improve the sources after all this time). Granted, any good sources may be non-English and offline but I'm not sure. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Verification is difficult. (I would change my mind if evidence emerged.) The poet's name is suspicious by itself, and the claims made seem. . . less than reassuring. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- verification is difficult, but after 14 days, there was time for authors to add if any existed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2015 (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 and redirect to Trisha Paytas. Unsourced, nothing to merge. – czar 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Video (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet-only film. I haven't been able to find any sources (although the film's title certainly makes the search harder). Fails WP:NF. --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Horror Society might be usable as a source. This was written by a staff member, but I don't really see anything on the site about editorial oversight, so that sort of works against it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. I couldn't find anything other than than the Horror Society review and I used a variety of name combinations. It's entirely possible that there may be more sources, but offhand it just doesn't seem like this short film really got any attention from anyone- even the typical horror sites seem to have predominantly ignored this. If anyone wants to userfy this in case there are more sources out there, I'm fine with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirect (partial merge of some info) to the article on Trisha Paytas. Disclosure: I once worked with her on a project and she's a doll... but this film concept of hers simply does not have the coverage to meet WP:NF. If that ever changes, this can be undeleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy because it's a good start but not good enough to keep. --Anar chyte 11:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Veteran (short story collection)[edit]

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

Redirect undone per WP:OSE. No individual notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took a while, but I found reviews to show notability. I don't think that the individual stories merit articles, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough reviews to be notable. There's also some coverage of Forsyth's then-unusual decision to publish his work online first. The individual stories get a bit of coverage each, but none is really notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Frederick Forsyth is one of the best-selling authors of all time (sold more than 70 million books) and this book received more than sufficient coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the others. Forsyth is tremendously prolific, and the collection does seem to meet GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets WP:NBOOK, article now has plenty of non-trivial reviews thanks to additions by Tokyogirl79 and Colapeninsula. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Veteran (short story collection) (the collection instead). - Ricky81682 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Veteran (short story)[edit]

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

Rediret undone per WP:OSE. No individual notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Veteran (short story collection). The short story by itself doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly notable enough for its own article but the story collection has quite a few reviews so this can redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, reviews found discuss the story collection as a whole not just this individual story. Suggestion by Tokyogirl79 to redirect may be okay although probably unnecessary as unlikely for wikireader to type 'The Veteran (short story)', more likely to type 'The Veteran' which brings up page listing story collection and films. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (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. Due to concerns herein about promotional tone in the article, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India Luxury Style Week[edit]

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

Blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Glen 09:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is a mess and unclear but the sources are there; the men's edition of fashion week was in April and the women's is in August. WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply. Even though it's promotional, judging by the large number of articles and photo galleries from the April event, it meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to find any indication of notability. This is just a fashion event that may or may not become an annual event.--Rpclod (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotionally, but it has loads of articles about it, which is what matters I believe. Alec Station (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Production and Recording[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources for this school. It seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Fails GNG. Jbh ^Talk 14:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 26 June 2015 (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gidh[edit]

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

The production status of film is unknown. The page shows no notability. It was started back in 2011, since then the film had no release date. So this page should be deleted for now and could be created later when release date is disclosed. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy until released.--Rpclod (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak keep as ,even though this project is slow moving, we have confirmation of filming having begun and the topic is receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace for now (considering both delete and keep in that sense) - Indeed the film hasn't received much good coverage since then with News finding some so I'm torn between because this is the case a lot of times but I think moving it to userspace until confirmed release is good (article created since 2011 saying "upcoming" is very concerning). SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to userspace would be useless as page creator himself is not active since April 2013. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a possibility of a willing user but, in that case, it's probably better to delete the article for now considering the slow production. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article should not be deleted. Perhaps the announcement is drawing near.^{Published on June 15, 2015} While good faith should be assumed, it appears that intention behind this nomination is to rewrite or recreate the page to bag the credit. sami ^talk 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about "bagging credit". It's about creating the article on the right time and then managing it too. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Umais Bin Sajjad: I apologize for the strident remarks but the film has been confirmed by reliable sources and the article should be kept per WP:NFF. sami ^talk 08:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 26 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Pickles[edit]

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

Non-notable per policy of WP:BLP1E, this has prodded twice but was removed by the same user. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reality show contestant who became a "brand ambassador." No indication of notability as a designer or model, and reality TV shows are thicker than mosquitos. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a contestant on the show. Non-notable per WP:BLP1E. Glen 23:26, 26 June 2015 (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. Don't tend to close on 2 but Been up 3 weeks and overall consensus is keep, No point dragging it on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooriki Ichina Maata[edit]

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

No evidence of substantial references to this topic in reliable sources. Dweller (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reportedly won a state government award for best film. Apparently, the internet doesn't cover most South Indian films of the pre-90s era. However, I'm sure there would be some Telugu-language sources. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no article on the topic in another language, so it's hard to check and there's no references to make the claim verifiable. Happy to call for speedy close to this if you find any. --Dweller (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the credibility of this source, yet it looks like WP:NEWSBLOG. —Vensatry _(ping) 21:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Ooriki Ichina Maata M. Balaiah

Keep per it receiving a very notable state award, and in a sad recognition that a pre-internet Indian film will be near impossible to source online. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needn't be sourced online. Online, offline, it just has to be sourced, by Wikipedia policy. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it is

... and anyone who is so inclined is welcome to visit libraries in Andhra Pradesh to see if some 1981 pre-internet newspaper or magazines have hard-copies which have survived and are archived. Luckily guideline also recognizes that we may accept a realistic expectation that a verifiable film topic from one of India's more prolific filmmakers, likely received coverage... even if not in our hands at this exact moment. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Features. – czar 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parrish Yaw[edit]

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

No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Ineligible for BLPPROD, as article created in 2007. Dweller (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to band's article as my searches found very few results here, here and here but I suppose it's enough to support a move. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 26 June 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LTIR[edit]

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

Proposed Canadian professional designation that is not in force and is not discussed in reliable sources. Fails GNG. Sammy1339 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL Bazj (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI and WP:NOT#DICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is a proposed bankruptcy legal acronym in Canada. The creator appears to be the same entity who is proposing the acronym. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even exist as a thing yet, and even when it does it probably won't be worth an article. --Michig (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethika[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional article about a non-notable brand. No in-depth, independent, reliable sources found discussing the company. As always, if the article is kept and improved because reliable sources were found, that is a good result. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing significant and notable here, here, here and final searches at Highbeam and Thefreelibrary found nothing. Unfortunately, it seems the company has not received third-party coverage even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 26 June 2015 (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 ~~both~~ Jim Cully, but not Ewart Potgieter. There was no AfD notice on the page of Ewart Potgieter so this was not a proper nomination for him. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On review: There had been an AfD notice on the Ewart Potgieter page, but an IP removed it a few days ago. The notice was in place for two weeks, which is more than enough to satisfy procedure, and the consensus here was clear, so I will delete the Ewart Potgieter article as well. --MelanieN (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cully[edit]

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

Non-notable as a boxer and being the 4th tallest boxer with little or no coverage does not override that. Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason (3rd tallest in this case):Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside I almost included Gogea Mitu but ended up restoring an earlier form which was better sourced and had more meat than what was up. In this case the claim to be histories tallest boxer might (barely) be grounds for notability but he does have better coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being tall is not enough to show notability. None of the boxers mentioned meet WP:NBOX and there is no significant independent coverage for either Cully or Potgieter.Jakejr (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I agree with the previous advocates for deletion. Being tall is not grounds for notability, they fail to meet WP:NBOX, and they lack the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being tall does not have enough requirements to show notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2015 (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Continuous Improvement in Public Services[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation, a speedy was declined for some unknown reason, and the page creator removed a PROD. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason the speedy was declined was specified in the edit summary, which says that the article isn't exclusively promotional. Two of the three references are the organization's own website, though, so I would still support deletion. KSFT ^C 18:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the "unknown reason" was that I couldn't see how on earth someone would describe this as "not exclusively promotional". Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Yes, it is about an organisation, and yes, you could have used the old version to play buzzword bingo, but there is a difference between that and being exclusively promotional. The first sentence of the old version, for example, looks like a very reasonable start to the article, and I see it is unchanged in the current version. Sure, much of the rest of it should be removed or copy edited with prejudice, but that's an argument for editing, not deletion. For some other opinions about what "exclusively promotional" means, see here and here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the fourth reference might seem independant of the subject, it says that the government created ICIPS, so it is not really independant. Duckduckgo does not know of any independant source, so notability is fairly dubious. Tigraan (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said in my PROD rationale, I don't think this passes WP:GNG. The references in the article don't cut it, and I couldn't find any suitable sources online either. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, was~~Keep or Move to Draft~~. Reason 1) A solid reason is that this AFD is BITEY and unnecessary to impose on a new editor.

Note that this is a brand new article by a new wikipedian who up to the point of this AFD was only "welcomed" by punitive notices. It is not formalized, but there is some support among AFD editors for a change in deletion processes where their frequent application is too wp:BITEy. An explicit reason not to delete an article--or at least not hastily--is if its deletion would remove a significant portion of the editors' contributions in Wikipedia so far. Or if it would otherwise be unnecessarily mean and BITEY. Concerns about an article can be registered by tagging them rather than forcing deletion immediately. The new wikipedian should not be bombarded with inside jargon. Note here the one-sentence deletion nom statement uses four(!) Wikipedia-jargon acronyms. That is not intelligible for the average human being. A new editor needs some time to absorb about interactions, deletion processes, policies and guidelines that they are being besieged with. This is partly a matter of being decent to well-meaning innocent people, instead of lashing out and hurting them. It is partly a matter of better marketing of Wikipedia. There's no need to offend someone and chase them away entirely with an all-negative harsh experience.

Also consider this editor's experience so far is 3 deletion processes...learning that whatever you do you will be attacked immediately on another level. It is just too fast. And further: the editor already went through experience of being blocked! I assume that creator was same person who created account name ICIPS (ICIPS account with permanent block info), and was blocked, and I can't tell how badly or nicely they were treated in that experience.

In this case the creator's entire contribution history so far is 7 edits at this article. That doesn't mean they are or will be an advocacy/problem wp:SPA, it simply means they are starting here. Everyone's first edits are in one area. And, there's no indication this editor is generating lots of similar articles. Note here there is no special need to abuse the person as a way of imposing costs on them, as conceivably is a reason to counter excessive costs a prolific editor might be putting onto Wikipedia's new page patrol and other Wikipedia processes.

Also in this case, the article is not promotional about any commercial venture (the subject is a charity organization)...there is no way anyone is going to profit here. Sure it has a positive tone about the organization, as do almost all articles about organizations in Wikipedia. There has been no suppression of negative information. So concern about promotionalism and possible COI are not so important.

So, what would be better here? Keep it for now, with note that if it is not improved within a month, say, it would be eligible for deletion again. Tag the article about the concerns you have, if you must. Tagging is not the best way to communicate, either. Better is to provide some reasonable guidance at its Talk page or the Talk page of the creator.

My impression is that it is a bit soon, but still okay, to have a Wikipedia article for this new organization (founded in 2012 and just having received charity status in 2015). It is explicitly supported/mentioned by the government in reference 4 above. It has run one or two or three annual conferences, including big successful 2014 one in Manchester, and it is building up steam e.g. by getting the Buckingham university connection mentioned in Reason 2 below. And if deletion is the ultimate outcome of this AFD, it could/should be presented as a "too soon"/"come back later" decision as is nicely enough done for Wikipedia's internal process on selecting new administrators. The article could be moved to Draft-space or otherwise provided to the creator to revise and try again later. AFD's usual outcome of total dismissal / total deletion is unnecessarily harsh-seeming. Note only experienced editors will know that you can get copies of deleted articles, so they know deletion might not be so permanent, that they could try again. But a new editor doesn't know that, and what form of copy should they request, with edit history or not? That's too much to expect them to know about. Here, IMO it is extremely likely that the organization will get significant coverage, but it hasn't yet because it was not yet a charity and was/is still finding its way. If Wikipedia in the future would likely want an article on this, no need to burn bridges.

Reason 2) I will make some effort to find coverage of the organization, too. Under sufferance...some time should be allowed for the creator to provide coverage they may know about, but did not understand was so important. If the creator was encouraged to get the coverage mentions, it would take burden OFF of wikipedia editors to have to do the work of searching for them.

One hit is mention of the organization at page 191 in a book, at book partially available at google books. ICiPs's "jargon-buster" webpage is recommended; it is a positive note. Book is Why Should I Give a ***** about Quality?: Understanding and Profiting From by Ian Purdy and Sheila Purdy, published by Lulu Publishing Services (is that a regular publisher or does using a "publishing service" mean that it is a self-published book?). It is a book for the mass market in business/management area.

A second hit is this new Masters program at University of Buckingham, that explicitly is to comply with ICiPs's standard. "This degree will accept its first cohort of students in September 2015....It will be fully accredited to the Institute of Continuous Improvement in Public Services (ICIPS) and successful graduates will automatically qualify as a Fellow of ICIPS (subject to annual membership fee)."

Another is a Top 25 award, for being most influential in continuous improvement, for the CEO of the organization, which is same as credit to the organization. Here it is covered outside of Icips itself: East Yorkshire executive wins prestigious European award in Commerce & Industry magazine.

Has searching been done on acronym "ICIPS"?

What were the two previous names of the organization, and have they been searched on? Note the current article mentions 2 name changes but does not yet give all names...it repeats one name by accident apparently.

I'll stop here for now. --do ncr am 13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (did amend later, 14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

Comment. Another possibility is that the creator could be encouraged to help write a Continuous improvement in public services article. Or move this article to that more general topic title, and revise. The Wikipedia article Continuous improvement does not mention public sector, and indeed TQM / CI / TPS / six sigma etc were all developed at/for manufacturing. But CI in public service is a valid, different topic, definitely Wikipedia-notable. One new article on the topic is this 2014 article that is a literature review. Rushing to delete tends to preclude coming up with more constructive alternatives. Working on the general topic first would support a specific article on this and other organizations later, in context instead of as an isolated orphan article.

Could the "Delete" voters please consider amending your !vote statements to indicate what more positive outcome(s) would be acceptable to them? --do ncr am 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Doncram's wall of text can fairly be summarized as:

AfD is pointy and unwelcoming to the creator who is a new editor;
"deleters" forgot to do WP:BEFORE, or did so with little diligence, as there are sources out there.
Continuous improvement, or continuous improvement in public services, is a notable topic.

(1) is likely true but it is not, in itself, a reason to close this AfD now that it is open. (3) may well be true too, but concept notability is not inherited (the notability of medicine does not make all physicians notable), so it does not help for that particular AfD.

(2) does not impress me: the book is a textbook example of "passing mention", the Buckingham master in "Continuous Improvement in Public Services" is probably not independant from ICIPS, the 2014 article does not mention ICIPS. The Lean Management Journal award could be something (it is awarded specifically for the work at ICIPS) but it begs the question of how notable the award is. The truth is that I have no idea, but the LMJ's website has a fairly unimpressive Alexa rank. Tigraan (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tigraan, for summarizing. To clarify, do let's say that (1)("AFD is Bitey") is true. And note that outright deletion would wipe out the entire contribution history of the new editor. I would support restricting the launch of AfDs in new-editor cases like this, i.e. to make some extension of the wp:BEFORE essay's requirements, but yes the AfD goals and rules have not yet been changed. However, I suggest we can and should do something now, in this AfD process. Specifically we can put in some effort to achieve some outcome different than outright deletion of the article, and all of the editor's contribution. One way is to try extra hard to find sources to justify a traditional "Keep" decision, but I have put in effort and the results are thin. (And the summary (2) is not fair; I did not say wp:before was not performed.) Another way is to find or create a suitable target to which the article could be redirected, saving the edit history and facilitating re-creation of the article later when more sources are available. This can be explained to the new editor and is far less Bitey. Now I think redirecting would be the best, because (3) ("CI in public services is a notable topic") is true, and a new article on that can reasonably mention ICiPs, and this ICiPs article can be redirected to it or to a suitable section within it. So we can just start it and thank the new editor for bringing attention to the gap in Wikipedia coverage.

So I started Draft:Quality management and continuous improvement in public services. Surely it can be in okay shape for mainspace very soon. I have invited the new editor to contribute to the draft, and hope they were not chased away permanently by the entirely negative actions directed at them so far. Tigraan, can you possibly please apply some of your writing skill to developing the draft? Others' help would be appreciated too. cheers, --do ncr am 16:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for distorting your thought about (2), that was a rough summary.

I apparently should have been clearer, but I think the fact that a new editor wrote this is irrelevant to the decision (delete, redirect, or else) that we ought to take. Of course it is unwelcoming to have one's article deleted, especially when effort went into it, because of some guideline that most users of WP are not aware of. But that needs to be adressed with kind words on a talkpage, not a twist of policies. (And conversely, if that article had been written by a veteran editor, I would not recommend a keep on the basis that he must know better than me. We judge articles, not people.)

I have of course no objection to a redirect if a suitable larger article meets notability criteria. I will try to edit your draft a bit but to be honest I have difficulties to write in English. Tigraan (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2015 (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. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Dairy Company[edit]

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

small restaurant with only very local significance and local references DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Not finding enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify a standalone article, but content is verifiable~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per the sources below, squeaks by WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of restaurants in Hong Kong. Keep. The coverages in multiple independent reliable sources are enough for a standalone article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic is clearly notable, and it does not fail WP:GNG. This restaurant has become tourist attraction in Hong Kong, renowned by Hong Kong residents for its service. Having only 'local' significance and references is not a reason to delete an article. Remember that English is an official language in Hong Kong. This article should not be deleted. Regards, Sovereign /^Sentinel 10:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 146.199.67.6 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure why a rather new-looking IP is relisting, but okay) Weak merge Coverage is predominantly travel guides ([46][47] and all of GBooks hits), and most of those currently used in line is arguably no RS (i.e. no other wikis, no blogs). Other sources (e.g. [48]) are very much exclusive to § Controversy, which might constitute WP:COATRACK for Hong Kong–Mainland conflict, or just WP:UNDUE 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, I relisted to allow further discussion by more participants to determine consensus. --146.198.28.207 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) ^{(formerly 146.199*)}[reply]

Speedy Keep - Being "small" and "local" are not valid reasons for deletion. STSC (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources not yet used in the article. CNNGo (about pg here; became CNN Travel) covered it,[49] as part of their 'Best Eats Awards'. Time Out (HK) did a short bit on it [50] like USA Today‎ [51] did in a similar roundup. Travelguides like Marriott's,[52] GuidePal,[53] MetropolAsia (?)[54] do refer to it, as an institution or place to visit, but there are other sources.
NewsBank shows significant length print media coverage – the South China Morning Post,[55] as well as coverage in Singapore and Australia newspapers the Straits Times and Gold Coast Bulletin.

I do want to add that blogs can be RSs. For example, 'TastyTreats' [56], whose About page shows it's run by a journalist of the food & drink section of Time Out London mag, would (arguably) come under WP:SPS's "self-published expert sources". Taking a couple of others, OpenRice (which The Globe and Mail suggest is[57] well regarded) awarded them top something or other, and The Culture-ist[58] looks to have at least some editorial oversight. Anyway, there is some lengthier sourcing, even if The New York Times style mag one is just a paragraph[59]. –146.198.28.207 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @NorAm & Wkology – would you mind taking another glance, see if say the SCMP and maybe one or two of the others push it over the notability threshold for you?

I would have to agree. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here about this article, while some of the delete arguments are quite strong, I don't see a consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central Marin Police Authority[edit]

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

miniscule police dept, article shows no indication its notable, only that it exists. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a plausible redirect to the area in which it is located, this page is not eligible for deletion and should not have been nominated (WP:R). Since this page has no prospect of being deleted, redirection does not require an AfD, and continuing this AfD would be a complete waste of time, this AfD should be immediately closed on procedural grounds. "It's small" isn't a valid argument against notability. Whether the article indicates notability is irrelevant, as notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation. There are, in fact, in particular, in excess of 130 sources in GNews (and more than 170 for "Central Marin Police") and 12 in Highbeam (28 for "Central Marin Police"). So it is far from obvious that this isn't notable. James500 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The authority has 58 employees, of whom 45 are sworn. Its budget for this year is $10.3 million: [60]. James500 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this department is the result of the recent merger of the Twin Cities Police Authority, and the police departments of Corte Madera, Larkspur and San Anselmo. Accordingly, sources that refer to those organisations contribute to the notability of this one, because they are now parts of this one. James500 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having now considered the sources turned up by former names of this department, it is now clear to me that it does satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This agency does not satisfy GNG. Most of the hits found by all that searching are passing mentions, as in "the chief of the Central Marin Police Authority said..." or "so-and-so retired from the Corte Madera Police Department." I found only one reference which was actually about the agency [61], and it like most of the others was from a small hyperlocal publication, Marinscope Community Newspapers‎. Thus there is not significant coverage from independent reliable sources. As for redirecting, since the agency serves three (and a half) towns, there is no obvious target for a redirect. It ~~can be~~ already is mentioned at the articles for each of the four constituent towns, but this article should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This history book alone constitutes significant coverage, without considering the other sources in GBooks and elsewhere. The fact that the department serves four towns is not a valid argument against redirection as we can redirect to the county in which the four towns are all located, namely Marin County, California (that is why its name refers to "Central Marin"). This target is exceptionally obvious. James500 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IGNORINGATD explains why that is not, in of itself, a valid argument for deletion. Some explanation should be given as to why you don't want to redirect/merge the page to Marin County, California, or some other target. (The relevant policies etc include ATD, BEFORE and PRESERVE). James500 (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Marin County would be inappropriate, as this is not a county agency, nor does it serve the entire county. Saying "redirect" to "some other target" is a worthless suggestion; redirect is only an option if there is a valid target and the subject is mentioned at or otherwise directly related to the target. In the absence of such a target, "redirecting" is an empty idea. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the police authority serves the whole county or part of the county is irrelevant. The "Central Marin" area is clearly a sub topic of Marin County, and if it does not have its own article, everything specifically about it goes in, and is redirected to, its parent topic, Marin County. A geographical area is always a valid sub topic of a larger area that wholly includes it. Another way of looking at this is to say that the authority's jurisdiction is within, or activities take place within, etc, the boundaries of county. The words "some other target" were not meant as a suggestion that one can !vote for redirection/merger to an unspecified target. They were included because a !vote that argues an article should be deleted merely because its topic is non notable is employing an invalid argument. In order to be valid, the !vote must positively assert that the editor has looked for possible targets and found none acceptable (he is required to search by BEFORE). If the !vote contains no such assertion, the closing admin is entitled to infer that the editor has not conducted that search, or even considered ATD (which he must consider by the deletion policy) and accord his !vote zero weight as a !vote for deletion (but not as a !vote against keeping as a standalone article, which is not the same thing). It is immaterial whether a specific target is mentioned in the AfD as all topics have one or more parent topic or topics, to which they can potentially be redirected. In a case like this it is obvious that there will be broader topics in policing, as well as geographical articles like Marin County. It might have been clearer if I had said "any other target" rather than "some other target". James500 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote needs no extrapolation. This organization fails GNG. Fail, fail, fail. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH, only trivial mentions of the department, no source discusses the department itself. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention of the department is discussion of the department. Brevity and irrelevance are not the same thing. James500 (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention is a trivial mention, the guideline expressly distinguishes trivial mentions from in-depth coverage. I quote from WP:ORGDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." James500, I suggest you read and try to understand the guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hansen, Megan (2012-12-21). "Police Council cements new Central Marin Police Authority". Marin Independent Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-07-06. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
2. Johnson, Nels (2015-03-26). "Marin supervisors approve dispatch deal with Central Marin police". Marin Independent Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-07-06. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
3. Andersen, Gregory (2012-12-12). "Twin Cities police anticipate consolidation: New law enforcement body to operate as 'Central Marin Police Authority'". Marinscope Community Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2015-07-06. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
4. Rooney, Chris (2015-04-01). "Sheriff's office to handle CMPA dispatch calls". Marinscope Community Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2015-07-06. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Central Marin Police Authority to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have sourced and expanded the article. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cunard, but this is WP:ROUTINE press announcements of local government departments' activity in local newspapers. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Press announcements of local government departments' activity in local newspapers are typically the sources used in these kinds of articles about local government departments. Per postdlf below, "the underlying purpose of notability guidelines, both to ensure that sufficient verifiable information exists for a topic and to guard against the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion, doesn't apply, or if it does apply at least not with the same force as if this was, for example, a private security firm rather than a taxpayer supported law enforcement agency". Cunard (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're dealing with a unit of government here, and one that has law enforcement powers at that, I question whether a strict application of notability guidelines makes sense here. Nothing in WP:ORG that I can find expressly discusses government agencies (which are also not mentioned in the list of what qualifies as an "organization"). And the underlying purpose of notability guidelines, both to ensure that sufficient verifiable information exists for a topic and to guard against the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion, doesn't apply, or if it does apply at least not with the same force as if this was, for example, a private security firm rather than a taxpayer supported law enforcement agency. And considering how we're dealing with guidelines rather than policies, I think we're fine just saying "we're not going to apply notability here" (and that's assuming GNG is not met, which some above contest), but regardless, preserving coverage of this kind of topic is an ideal WP:IAR situation.
There is then still the choice of whether such government agencies should be documented in the form of standalone articles, within articles on the communities they serve, or within articles (or even mere lists) covering all agencies of the same type within a state. Sometimes all of those may be appropriate, sometimes not. While there may be a reasonable argument here that there is not sufficient content to merit a standalone article, the absence of a single merge/redirection target for the title, which is a reasonable search term at the very least, weighs towards keeping it as is, at least until such a target can be identified or created. Outright deletion because "there are four articles to which it could be redirected and we can't choose only one" is simply not reasonable. So keep without prejudice to merging/redirecting. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well spoken. I believe that since the subject meets Wikipedia:Verifiability and has received the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But I also strongly agree that "the absence of a single merge/redirection target for the title, which is a reasonable search term at the very least, weighs towards keeping it as is, at least until such a target can be identified or created." Cunard (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not that the police authority would try to promote themselves, or misuse Wikipedia for any purpose. The problem is that there are one, two or more law enforcement agencies and a myriad of other local government agencies in any populated place. They are very much run-of-the-WP:MILL. Although they are not specially mentioned, the ORGDEPTH notability rules must apply to them. An organization that is mentioned only in a local (their hometown) newspaper, doesn't pass. Two of your sources are the announcement of the consolidation of several local police forces into one part-county-wide force, the other two mention that they agrred upon central dispatch with the local sheriff's office. That's WP:ROUTINE. It interests the local residents, nobody else. No in-depth coverage on the police force itself has been found. Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that there are one, two or more law enforcement agencies and a myriad of other local government agencies in any populated place." Yes, many populated places have multiple local government agencies. They should at a minimum be listed within a relevant article and their names preserved as redirects. I don't know of any town or city (in the U.S. at least) that has organized multiple police departments within its boundaries, however. But even if so, then that one populated place would be an obvious merge/redirection target for those multiple law enforcement agencies if it's decided they don't merit standalone articles, and any article on a municipality or other jurisdiction should cover its public services and government. Here we have one law enforcement agency covering four populated places, and so can't favor any one of them for redirection. It would be absurd to say we must delete a potential redirect because it is relevant to four articles rather than just one. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious target would be Marin County, California. Anything that is bigger than town or citywide, can be mentioned in a county's article, even if it is something not present in the whole county, but only part of it. Kraxler (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's been disputed above, and is in any event an editing decision. Regardless, you !voted for deletion; have you changed your mind? postdlf (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (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. Whereas potentially it could be notable, the current version is not based on reliable sources and thus fails WP:N. The intro was added during the nomination, but the main problem remains unaddressed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life skills in Canada[edit]

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

Under a misleadingly generic title, a shameless promotion of a certain business. Basically single-source text. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing different about life skills in Canada, as opposed to anyplace else (other than having to worship hockey). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant self-promotion for own non-notable business. Excessive link-spam, no independent sources. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Life skills are not a thing that vary from one country to another, meaning that this is really more of an advertisement for various organizations than it is an article about a thing. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disregarding the blatantly inaccurate title, content appears promotional of that organization. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete lifted completely from one source , the article looks complete POV without balanced sourcing. LibStar (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2015 (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] "Unilad". Unilad. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

[2] "Cemetery Luring Brides Lets Indonesians Land Helicopter at Plot". Bloomberg.com.

[3] "Indonesia's rich are dying to get into the latest luxury club". The Sydney Morning Herald.

[4] "Cemetery resort puts accent on fun in funeral". theage.com.au.

[5] "A burial plot to die for near Jakarta". The Straits Times.

[Rai-6] "La Procura spiega il sistema-Roma: "È la 'Mafia Capitale', romana e originale"". http://www.rainews.it. Rai - Radiotelevisione Italiana. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[7] "Italy arrests 44 in mafia migrant centre probe". http://www.bbc.com. http://www.bbc.com. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[8] "Mafia capitale, Cantone: "Commissariare appalto da 100 milioni al Cara di Mineo"". http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[9] "Mafia capitale, il libro mastro del clan di Carminati e i "doppi" stipendi dei politici". http://www.rainews.it. Rai - Radiotelevisione Italiana. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[10] "Mafia Capitale, sequestrati beni a Salvatore Buzzi per 16 milioni". http://roma.corriere.it. Corriere della sera. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[11] "Mafia Capitale, protesta M5S al Comune di Roma: "Marino vattene". Grillo lancia Occupy Campidoglio". http://www.huffingtonpost.it. http://www.huffingtonpost.it. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[12] "Rome Mayor Marino under pressure after Italy arrests". http://www.bbc.com. http://www.bbc.com. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[13] "Mafia Capitale. Claudio Bolla, vice di Salvatore Buzzi: "Massimo Carminati socio della coop 29 giugno. La cena con Renzi costata 10mila euro". Grillo lancia Occupy Campidoglio". http://www.huffingtonpost.it. http://www.huffingtonpost.it. Retrieved 17 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[14] "La decisione del ministro Orlando: 41 bis per Massimo Carminati". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[15] "Il boss di Mafia Capitale ai pm: "Se parlo cade il governo..."". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[16] "Mafia capitale, il sottosegretario all'agricoltura Giuseppe Castiglione (Ncd) indagato dalla procura di Catania"". http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/. http://www.liberoquotidiano.it. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[17] "Italy Junior Minister Investigated in Corruption Probe". http://www.nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 19 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help)

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]