Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 March	11 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superweapon[edit]

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

The article does not have a source and seems to be made up of several contradictory original researches by several editor, resulting a Chimera article.

I tried a search myself and its seems mainstream media chiefly uses the term either as peacock term or as a relative term that compares with "weapon". See: [1][2][3] Codename Lisa (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing V1 etc. is no complete nonsense, but after all this is still a personal list: delete. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first problem is that this page is mistitled. It should be List of weapons regarded as superweapons. That's not a dictionary definition, a subject to which superweapon would seem to be inevitably consigned. Assuming a name change, it's a matter of sourcing — which the current piece does not have. It does seem like a very reasonable and probably sourceable list, however, which puts me square in the middle. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarded" is a weasel word. Regarded by whom? (Unless the answer is "the whole world", WP:NOTESSAY.) In my sources above, Su PAK FA, an unmanned sub and a ship-grade cannon are called superweapons. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weapon of mass destruction. Pax 07:32, 14 March 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. Nakon 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nippulanti Manishi (1986 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. The article's only reference is in a Telegu cinema database. I am finding no reliable sources on the film, as an internet search brings up mainly blogspot blogs about downloading songs from the movie. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete through lacking sourcability. If Telugu-reading Wikipedians can find sources, please ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
No prejudice to restoring the article if editors find sources in the future that provide significant coverage about the film.
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 17 March 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. Nakon 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Murray (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non notable player, doesn't meet WP:RLN Jevansen (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is this a joke? How has this page existed since 2009? A clear fail of WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tempted as I am to delete some of the more outrageous parts of this article, better to leave them in just for another few days to demonstrate how shocking it is that it lasted so long. If I were still an admin I'd delete it as an A7. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RLN.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:31, 14 March 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. Nakon 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bull in the Heather[edit]

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

I think this article does not meet the WP:NSONG guideline as there are not reliable, third-party sources to write a reasonably detailed article. I know this because I am improving the Experimental Jet Set, Trash and No Star article and I haven't found any source which discusses the song directly and out of the context of the album. According to WP:NSONG, "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." This is actually what I did (I merged some of the article's material into its corresponding album), so having a separate article for this song is unnecessary and confusing. Additionally, the article contains a lot of original research and inaccurate sources. Niwi3 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Top 30 UK hit single that received coverage in the music press at the time, even if you can't find it online. Here's a short Rolling Stone piece, an article on the video from Vice, and a source for the UK chart position for starters. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wasn't aware that these sources existed! Thank you for taking your time to find them. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Michig's findings, plus this source from Spin, where it's named as one of the 100 best alternative rock songs of the 1990's. While the Spin source only says a few words about the song, being in a list like that does give indication that it's a pretty popular song, so I would be surprised if even more sources didn't exist. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 12 March 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 Rise Records. Nakon 01:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DangerKids[edit]

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

This band falls seemingly into the category of TOOSOON. Very few sources (mainly PRIMARY or unreliable) with no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having reviewed the quality of the sources. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 10:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rise Records, the band's record label, in lieu of deletion. When the band has received significant coverage in reliable sources, the redirect can be undone. Cunard (talk) 01:59, 17 March 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. Nakon 01:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson–Harrison method[edit]

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

A minor professional joke, 45 google hits excluding wikipedia mirrors Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for better sources for this one a week or so ago and came to the same conclusion: it exists, but only as a minor piece of wordplay, and has no significance beyond that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 11 March 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 merge to Pavement (architecture). Any discussion about what should or should not happen to Paver (flooring), can happen on that article's talk page (or someone could be WP:BOLD and just merge it). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interlocking concrete pavers[edit]

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

Article was created out of commercial interest; a third of it is how-to writing; unsourced and hopelessly lacking any indication of meeting the general notability guideline. Drm310 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep "Interlocking concrete pavers", "concrete interlocking pavers", "iterlocking paver" - together give an impressive number of hits in google books, i.e., the subject is clearly notable. The problems described in the nomination are easily fixed by normal editing (and I got rid of 90% them in just eleven keyboard strokes and mouse clicks :-). What remains is to throw in 2-3 references to have a decent stub. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above; plenty out there to fix it with. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy keep after I started work on it. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is plainly insufficient reason to support of fork of this topic, as this article is two inconsequential paragraphs long, Paver (flooring) is one paragraph long, and Pavement (architecture) likewise contains about an inch-and-a-half of text. Merge both into Pavement (architecture) (as has been suggested in tag for nearly a year now). Pax 07:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Paver (flooring) and Interlocking concrete pavers to Pavement (architecture) - These three are practically the same thing! -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:29, 14 March 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cedonia, Washington[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Actually meets WP:NPLACE (item 3) ; In fact, WP:NGEO, a recent guideline to handle geography, is met. And pretty detailed references are easily found even in books. I added two. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Listed in GNIS, therefore is legally-recognized and meets WP:NGEO. Altamel (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn my error, Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 11 March 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 Deleted as G7. Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela (Malof) Hill[edit]

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

Does not currently meet notability under WP:BASIC or WP:ENT and a search doesn't indicate that there could be much added to make it qualify.

Also please note that there is a clear conflict of interest (you can see from a post on my talk page that "Pammiepie9" is Pamela (Malof) Hill. Not a reason for deletion in and of itself, but, I believe, important to recognize. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Ironholds (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an autobiography. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 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. Delete all. Nakon 01:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mojdeh Shamsaee[edit]

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

No reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject passes either general notability or notability for entertainers. The only source in the article is a passing mention that she is a member of the cast. Maybe there is more significant coverage in Persian press. Jbh (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Amendment to nomination - While the Fajr International Film Festival award may get her over the notability hurdle. There is still the issue of finding enough sources to verify and sustain the article per notability requiring verification Jbh (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related article because it is about the same person per Comment below. Jbh (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is a duplicate of Mozhdeh Shamsai. The source used to cite the festival award on the other article seems to be a case of citogenesis however. Will look for a reliable source for this claim later.Bosstopher (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the AfD be somehow combined? I am unsure how to do that. Jbh (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial. See WP:MULTIAFD for a guide. I'd do it but i'm not sure if I'm allowed to do it for you.Bosstopher (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While my farsi is absolutely atrocious, I couldnt find any reliable sources establishing notability on the fawiki entry. More worryingly, according to these two articles, Shamsai never actually won the Silver Simorgh for best actress which was instead won by Soraya Qasemi. [4] [5] The source used to claim Shamsai won her Simorgh's on her main article, seem to have been a case of citogenesis, so I removed the likely false claims. Bosstopher (talk) 19:23, 13 March 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 Nomination withdrawn. JMHamo (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Antonio Marcel Green[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT JMHamo (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Has been in the Rally New Zealand JMHamo (talk) 18:44, 10 March 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. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makesbridge[edit]

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

Software fails the GNG. No coverage whatsoever in any reliable sources. Speedy deleted in 2014 as G11. schetm (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability,Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Orduin ^Discuss 23:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 March 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. Consensus is that the article now meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Brown[edit]

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

Article about artist which does not seem to meet WP:Artist or WP:GNG, Despite finding one source on her at [6]. The sources in the article are primary sources or listings and do nothing to establish notability. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a quick search, I'm not seeing any coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is difficult as the name is difficult to google (too common) and there appears to be more than one artist named Lorna Brown. I can't find a cv for her that may list 3rd-party coverage which would help to establish notability. She's written some things, such as this but that doesn't help with notability. freshacconci talk to me 19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left a note with the article creator and mentioned userfying as an option. Awaiting a response. --Drm310 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this indicate that the national Gallery owns some of her work? [7]E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [8] is the work, so I would say yes. --Drm310 (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a National Gallery acquisition as a kind of certificate of notability for an artist, although I do not know if this is a WP standard. (It could/probably should be), But there are plenty of gallery shows and sources for an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing here [9] a recent news article . review of 2014 exhibit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source I could find and listed in my nomination.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of this article. I'm new to Wikipedia and created it as part of the Art+Feminist Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon over the weekend. We had a couple of experienced editors looking over our pages but it seems that I have more work to do on this article. I do know of additional secondary sources to substantiate notability and would like to take some time over the next couple of days to add these citations. It is possible to have the article moved into my userspace while I complete these citations? Not sure how to go about this? Thank you to Drm310 for your advice. MainStreetStudio (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the article would meet notability requirements if we can add some sources. She's exhibited at Centre International D'art Contemporain de Montreal, Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography and McMaster Museum of Art, which is significant. If other sources are available, they could be listed on the article talk page in bibliographic style and can be used in the article. Since deletion discussions last 7 days, I doubt userfying will be necessary as the main issue is sources (as opposed to a completely unusable article). freshacconci talk to me 13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trusting that User:MainStreetStudio will continue to revise this into a good, well-sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the primary concern was sourcing to prove notability.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MainStreetStudio: - re "It is possible to have the article moved into my userspace while I complete these citations?" - I think you could save a copy to your user space, then just let the article be deleted. We can delete the article here with no prejudice against re-creation! Be sure to reach out if you need help working on the article. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush -- still 6 days left. There's plenty of time to add sources and then the article will be fine. freshacconci talk to me 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the deletion discussion has already started. People already weighed in based on what they saw when the discussion started. No harm in just deleting then recreating from user space. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't understand what you're saying. No one's !vote is fixed: people change their minds during the process. If the article is improved during the next 6 days, and all it needs is some sources, then it's reasonable to assume an administrator will decide to keep the article, and if there's no consensus, it defaults to keep. If you're suggesting closing the discussion early, that usually doesn't happen unless it's a snowball keep or delete, which this isn't. I haven't !voted yet but I am leaning to keep based on her exhibition record. If we can find some decent sources, I'd !vote keep. freshacconci talk to me 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re " people change their minds during the process." - True true. But only if those people keep their eye on the process. 6 days from now, I might not think this is a "delete" any longer, but I might fail to change my opinion on this page. An admin might look at consensus and figure it was still for delete.

Regardless, whether it's kept or deleted, we're agreed that as long as sources can be found the article can be kept in one form or another. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I was just over-analyzing your comment. freshacconci talk to me 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I've started a list of potential sources that can be used on the article talk page, limiting it to 3rd party (i.e. not gallery catalogues, press releases, pamphlets, etc.). freshacconci talk to me 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brown seems very active, but good sources seem to elude web-searches. However, I found this reliable source [10] Jonpatterns (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the 3rd time someone has provided the same source, it is the same one I listed in the nomination. Being active is not an argument for notability and since all of us seem to only find the one same source only strengthens the view that she is not widely spoken of. The new sources being listed on the talkpage of the article still do not meet WP:GNG most of them are just acknowledgement of her position at the gallery and not actually about her or her work, hopefully the library visit by the page creator will turn up some valid sources.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snark isn't really helpful. As for the sources on the talk page, that's not actually true. The esse review is just that, a review of her work and esse is a respected art magazine and counts as a reliable source. The book as well is valid. The writer is independent of the publisher and there would be editorial autonomy. Yes, it's a book published by the gallery that exhibited the work but it counts as independent within the relatively small Canadian art world. I wouldn't use the book to back up extraordinary claims but as a RS it is useful for establishing notability. So far, there are three RSs and MainStreetStudio has assured us that there are non-electronic sources available. Once those are available I believe this will be an easy keep as the artist actually is notable, we just can't verify it yet. freshacconci talk to me 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What snark? I stated the fact that people are regurgitating the same story which was acknowledged in the nomination and pointed out "Very Active" is not a inclusion criteria. As for the sources yes I can agree some of them are reliable sources but do they cover the artist in any kind of depth, or are they just reviews of her work? If they are reviews of her work does that make the work notable or her? Is it always the same piece of work or is it a review of different pieces? I don't have access to the book, is the book a sales tools to encourage sales and visits to the gallery? If so can it be considered reliable? - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One review by itself wouldn't count for much but a review in a respected magazine amongst other RSs is a good source. The book is from a non-profit gallery and the work wouldn't be for sale in any case, so no it's not promotional. As I said, in Canada, books are often published in this way and it's so that there are academic and critical resources available. Canada does not have a large independent publishing industry. Brown's exhibition record in large museums is actually enough to establish notability per WP:ARTIST and, I believe, WP:GNG. Verifiability is the issue at this point and three good sources go along way to verify the assertion of notability. freshacconci talk to me 16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page to include additional secondary sources, a list of collections, awards, and reviews. Thank you everyone for the suggestions and advice. MainStreetStudio (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the sources added this now easily passes WP:GNG. I never doubted the artist was notable given her exhibition record but with sources like the Globe and Mail, Georgia Straight, C Magazine, esse, and the book, this is now an obvious keep. freshacconci talk to me 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the original nominator I now feel this article has now proven notability of the subject to meet WP:GNG and WP:Artist, however I will not close/withdraw this as there are still outstanding delete votes. I applaud all involved for the improvement to the article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 15 March 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. Nakon 01:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Win Pe[edit]

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

Subject is not notable as hostage (none of the other hostages have an article or a redirect to the hostage page because they have been involved). There are no sources or text in the article which would indicate that subject is notable otherwise. Optimale ^Gu 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Strikes me as obvious WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; not notable. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:VICTIM. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babestress (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Victims of crimes are not notable from that to have their own article. See WP:CRIME. --22:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I undid it, but it seems to be the best idea: redirect to 2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Hostages per WP:BLP1E. ansh 666 18:38, 16 March 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. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Ram[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. No evidence of notability. Created by a WP:SPA. Probably WP:VANITY. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable. Only two citations. Second citation is a dead link. Educationtemple (talk) 13:06, 13 March 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. A7 kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CCK (Church of Christ the King) Students[edit]

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

its not important Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of, and no, notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:16, 10 March 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 Deleted (G11) by RHaworth. nac –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EComfort[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are either company web page, directory listings, or articles which mention subject in passing or not at all. Also, violates WP:COI. ubiquity (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An analysis of the eight citations reveals the following:

not actually about subject (interview with CEO on home maintenance topics)
subject's web page
subject's web page
not actually about subject (article about zero-logistics e-commerce)
does not even mention subject
directory listing
does not even mention subject
not actually about subject (contains quote from CEO)

There is no significant coverage from reliable sources here. ubiquity (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed two of the most obvious irrelevant references. What's left does not provide enough coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH to satisfy WP:NCORP. It doesn't help that the article was authored by someone from the company itself, with an obvious conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite Drm310's heroic and Quixotic efforts, this is, as he notes, still spam. Pax 07:50, 14 March 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. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volumetric Site Analysis[edit]

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

~~Blatant Original research~~ non-notable theory that serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable author, Michele Leidi.I think When their "Volumetric Site Analysis" becomes notable, someone with no WP:COI, who knows how to write an encyclopedic articles will write about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's not really original reasearch, rather WP:PROFRINGE: giving undue weight to ideas with few and non-influential promoters, if any. The only relevant search-engine hit that I got was Leidi's article. Tigraan (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one video, one paper, one SPA contributor. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article was re-edited. It covers notable original research developed at a notable institution that was submitted and accepted in several peer-reviewed independent scientific journals/conferences as illustrated by the following reliable sources:[11],[12],[13],[14]. If still not sufficient the article should be merged into Site Analysis. NextWriter (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)— NextWriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All that your links prove is that Leidi has published papers (including a thesis). The publishers might or might not be legit, I did not check but it does not matter: none of them points to secondary sources that discuss the impact those papers had on the field. Most researchers over 30 will have a PhD thesis and a dozen of articles; yet most of them, and most of their research, are non-notable. Tigraan (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FRINGE and WP:OR Antigng (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fabulist bullshit from the first sentence: "...a design technique for the conceptualization of architecture in the urban context..." Smacketh the big red button labeled "EASY". Pax 08:06, 14 March 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 Biosphere. Nakon 00:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bioverse[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Prod contested by author. --Finngall ^talk 13:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this term has no currency outside the work of Dirk Schulze-Makuch (whose own notability, despite lots of sources, I'm not sold on). I suppose if other editors are generous, a redirect to extraterrestrial life is plausible, although I suspect inclusion of Schulze-Makuch's term there would be undue weight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There doesn't seem to be a connection between this concept and Dirk Schulze-Makuch nor extraterrestrial life, at least according to our articles about those topics, so redirecting would be incorrect. Google search brings up results for a great diversity of cleaning products but nothing about this usage. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the WikiDictionary - Bfpage |leave a message 22:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to biosphere. The neologism isn't notable, but it provides a sensible redirect target in its definition. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:01, 15 March 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 WP:A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Onyango Nanga[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Kennedy should wait until he becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI, who knows how to write an encyclopedic article will write about him here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Cannot see why it's not just being speedy deleted, it's an autobiography about a non-notable academic. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being autobiography is usually not a valid reason to speedy delete articles. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:15, 10 March 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. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivedi Effect[edit]

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

Unremarkable form of alternative medicine. A search fails to find coverage in reliable sources, only websites promoting the practice. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources aside, this is very nearly eligible for an A1 speedy deletion for lack of context. There's no here here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Appears to be WP:SPAM and WP:COI to me. Check this website on the same subject. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, that's no article at all. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even speedily: Per above, there are no sources here, virtually no context, nor an indication of why this is significant. Upjav (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 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, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been provided--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Bose[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-unotable actor. Wgolf (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, as this WP:BLP article is completely lacking in reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not supported by any sources at all. Educationtemple (talk) 13:14, 13 March 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. Nakon 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyons[edit]

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

Article contains two, possibly three, decent sources. Others are unreliable, reviews, or PR. Fails WP:GNG Jppcap (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ive looked into this before and the article had a ton of dead links, no real news about the guy when I checked and I dont really think he meets notability standards. S3venevan (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real demonstration of notability. The sources are weak, and too dependent on the input of the subject, which is generally a sign he is not notable, since people have not bothered to indepdently verify his claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 14 March 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 I might normally relist a debate of this nature, I don't believe any consensus will be garnered by doing so. As, it seems that the community is entirely split on this article's inclusion, and likely will be... until sometime in the future, when it can become clear whether this is just a news story or whether it actually has long term notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Airlines Flight 1086[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor air traffic accident. No fatalities. Not much by way of injuries. No significant technical issues. Just not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 people were injured and 5 required hospitalization. This should be added to the article. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This accident is very similar to QANTAS flight 1. That flight ran off the runway and damaged property to. If this article is deleted then the other article should be deleted to, but that article hasn't been considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.105.26 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Yes, keep, per precedent in Qantas Flight 1, and TWA Flight 843, among others. Both well established articles here similar to DA1086 here. Responding to this !vote, my own !vote appears below. Juneau Mike (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - strong possibility that the a/c will be declared a write-off due to damage sustained and age. If this happens then the accident will meet the generally accepted threshold to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference does it make if it's a write-off due to age, i.e. that it makes no financial sense to repair it? The "generally accepted threshold" is meant as a rough measure of severity of the incident, is it not? Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Alakzi: - had this been a two-year old aircraft, then it is likely that it would have been repaired. This aircraft is nearly 28 years old. Given the amount of damage to the port wing, it is very likely an economic write-off. The community has decided over many years of argument that hull loss is one of the major factors in pushing an accident up the notability scale. That is not to say that a hull-loss is a prerequisite for an article, nor is the requirement for a death, or a set number of deaths. Obviously the more deaths there are, the easier it is to argue the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there an explanation why that is? Why will this incident be more notable if the aircraft is written off? Alakzi (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with waiting. Close this AfD and re-discuss later. -- Y not? 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even considering deletion is crazy. Meets ALL criteria of WP:GNG Major crash, airport closed, lots of coverage. In contrast, Wikipedia covers individual episodes of TV shows, which shows Wikipedia rules and decisions are really biased and arbitrary.Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wowee Zowee public: WP:OTHER. There's no claim of notability, the article is based on a single source, and it fails WP:AIRCRASH. Am I missing something?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are missing that there are more than 80 articles. It is just that WP hasn't yet included them. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, you are missing more! WP:AIRCRASH gives guidelines for aircraft articles, airline articles, and small plane crashes. It does not cover airline crashes. So WP:AIRCRASH is not the write guideline to quote, muchas WP:PORN isn't either. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:AIRCRASH was raised because of notability mentioned there. Don't see notability addressed here. WP:NOTNEWS too.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2015 in aviation. Aside from lack of fatalities, skidding off the runway and coming to a halt is not even a hull loss. Relatively minor incident. If we are about to include every such incident, the article namespace would inflate to several hundreds new entries. Brandmeister^talk 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of articles about individual episodes of TV shows. WP does not ration bandwidth Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: - did you read my comment above. I held off starting an article on this accident for the stated reason, but would expect a decision to be made on the aircraft within a month. Mjroots (talk)
@Brandmeister:The fact that there were no fatalities or that the aircraft has not yet been declared a hull loss is not a limiting factor. It did not just "skid off the runway and come to a halt." It was a serious aviation accident and meets the criteria for notability. There are lots of well-developed aviation articles on similar or less-serious incidents, e.g. Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 and JetBlue Airways Flight 292. Darkest Tree Talk 17:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serious in what way? If there's a serious malfunction leading to notable consequences, then yes, but so far I don't see any. In case of Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 the airport installed EMAS, while JetBlue Airways Flight 292 looks like borderline case to me. Last year a Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 with 494 people made an emergency landing due to cabin depressurization, triggering oxygen masks deployment, but I didn't decide to start an article even on that (it was even removed from the Singapore Airlines article). Brandmeister^talk 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not serious? I'm sorry, maybe you don't understand what a big deal it is when a commercial passenger aircraft runs off the end of the runway and and goes up the side of an embankment, smashing up the aircraft, and stops a few meters short of falling into a body of water. And if you are worried about "the article namespace inflating to several hundred new entries," well, I have bad news for you. You should see how many new articles are created on Wikipedia every week. It's a lot more than a few hundred. And yet somehow the WP servers handle it. Darkest Tree Talk 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This is not as crash but aircraft overshooting the runway (incident). No fatalities, no aftermath and does not matter what investigation report / NTSB comes out with, this incident will never be significant enough. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This flight did not overshoot the runway. It crashed into the seawall in the middle and side of the runway, not the end. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Wowee Zowee public, I am quoting just three of the several references provided in the article: 1) This, 2) This and 3) This. All three reports say that the aircraft overshot the runway (Unless I missed something). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you say "other crap exists", these articles are not crap. TACA Flight 110, Southwest Airlines Flight 812, Southwest Airlines Flight 2294, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion. None of these planes were damaged at all or much. This article about the Delta flight, the left wing is busted up pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowee Zowee public (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All four articles you cited resulted in operation directive changes. Not sure about this one (and I doubt there will be one) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we are going to base our decision to keep or delete this article on whether some airline changes their operating policies? May I assume we'll be keeping it until that happens or doesn't happen? Darkest Tree Talk 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Not significant event. That type of events occurs twice or more per month around the world. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is rare for LaGuardia and created so much buzz that even the BBC reported it as its #2 story. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all. Regarding the comments above, we don't wait preemptively. If the accident happens to be a hull loss the article can be re-created.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion then re-creation is very disruptive. If there is a redirect, it is less disruptive. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually quite notable and hull loss is not the deciding criterion. Darkest Tree Talk 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides not a hull loss, no injuries and no apparent changes to procedures or regulations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Delta Air Lines#Incidents and accidents. Runway overruns are more common than crashes, but they are not routine events either. The incident should be covered, but it does not require a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents Minor injuries, little inconvenience caused, and that one line sums up everything about the incident concisely unless we find out later some kind of neglect caused the incident. Nate • (chatter) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Maybe this turns out to be notable. Otherwise, redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents with a link from Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. Epic Genius (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, but no prejudice against a redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect to LaGuardia Airport#Accidents and incidents and/or Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. Aria1561 (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:NOTNEWS. No need to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: It's now another five days, and there are no new recent sources that might help establish notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, yet the article sources are either news reports from within a day or so of the crash (ten days old), the week-old NTSB second update (plus one article referencing it), and an Economist blog entry saying the accident was no big deal (i.e., not notable). This is still a clear delete. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP FFS - This is plainly news. Know why? I SAW IT ON THE NEWS. In a country different than the one this occurred in. It was covered internationally. So smug assertions that WP:NOTNEWS applies are simply wrong.96.51.16.28 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's plainly news. Did you actually read WP:NOTNEWS before citing it? It says Wikipedia is NOT and NEWSpaper and so doesn't report on every minor incident like a newspaper would. I think you've misinterpreted its meaning but your argument is actually an argument for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the news because it's notable. And your argument that an argument against deletion is actually an argument for deletion is really an argument against taking you seriously. Darkest Tree Talk 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the news because it's newsworthy. Which is not the same as notable. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And whether you like it or not, WP:NOTNEWS tells us what Wikipedia isn't - it's part of the What Wikipedia Is Not series of policies. Reinforcing that it is news without explaining why it is notable is a poor argument for keeping this article. I'm sorry that is the case, but that doesn't change what was written. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think WP:AIRCRASH (being an essay, rather than a guideline or policy) is pretty silly at the best of times, and this doesn't even rise to the level of meeting those criteria. Airports are closed for storms and fuel spills all the time, so the suggestion that the airport closure makes this a subject worth covering is silly. If someone wants to mention this elsewhere, they can, but it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't violate WP:AIRCRASH. Some people just read the title, WP:SOMETHING. However, if you actually read aircrash, it is about airplane or airline articles, not crash articles. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it plenty - I've participated in extensive discussions about its interpretation and application. I'm here because I'm an AFD regular, not because I'm an airplane article regular. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. You have to be kidding me that this would even be considered for deletion? You would have to delete, no joke, 50% of the articles on Wikipedia if you applied the same criteria used in the arguments for deleting this article. The fact that no one was killed or really injured in the incident does not detract from the seriousness of what happened in the aviation world. The fact that no one died was really a matter of luck—if the aircraft had slid a few more feet over the top of the berm, everyone could have died. Check out this well-developed article on a very similar incident: Southwest Airlines Flight 1455. Clearly notable, clearly a keeper. Darkest Tree Talk 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add that if we're going to delete this article, then we'd better delete this other well-developed article too: JetBlue Airways Flight 292, because no one died and the aircraft sustained far less damage than Delta 1086. (Note: this is not a challenge to the deletionists to do it, just an example of the flawed logic being used to argue for deletion of Delta 1086). Darkest Tree Talk 17:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there are other articles that should be deleted is no reason to keep this one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the final report is released. It might yet turn out to be notable. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the article can be recreated if that is the case. We don't work the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the final report makes it noteworthy (which I highly doubt), we can recreate the article, but presently it certainly is not notable. - The ChampionMan 1234 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ Please Reconsider—Article Improved. I have done some major work on the article, added a lot of material sourced from the NTSB. The aircraft skidded out of control for several thousand feet and destroyed about 940 feet of perimeter fence. I think that this accident clearly meets the thresholds for notability. I'd appreciate if you all would take a look and reconsider. Thanks. Darkest Tree Talk 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to have gone through a large restructure since it's nomination. Here's what has changed. More importantly, 16 good references about the flight let it fly (geddit it's a plane... I'm sorry) by WP:GNG. I suggest anyone who has voted to maybe take another look at it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look, and see no reason to change my mind. Indeed, one of the cited references, from The Economist (currently FN12) takes as its premise that this is a "prototypical airline accident", which argues against notability. The bulk of the article's additions come from a primary source, the latest NTSB report, and I removed a citation to a Wikipedia article, by definition not a reliable source. Barring some startling future revelation, this simply isn't notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying we can't use NTSB reports on plane crashes is like saying we can't use NASA documents on spaceflight. Except that the NTSB has an additional degree of separation from the crashes that NASA doesn't have from spaceflight. You are grasping at straws. And I didn't choose The Economist ref and I don't care about it. I would gladly get rid of it. There is no such thing as a prototypical airline crash. Darkest Tree Talk 04:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me: as a primary source, the NTSB report does nothing to establish notability. You can certainly use it for the usual primary-source information. I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see "grasping at straws" enter the discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my apologies, you are not grasping at straws. Thank you for clarifying. But I do still believe the subject is notable. Darkest Tree Talk 15:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NTSB is not a primary source. They are completely independent from Delta or the New York and New Jersey Port Authority, who run LGA. Statements from those two would be primary sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in part. While they might be independent of the airline, the report is still a technical incident report that requires interpretation by secondary sources. NTSB and other government reports aren't really "coverage" because they demonstrate no editorial discretion as to whether or not the subject is notable, and thus worthy of coverage which is the point of our reliance on that coverage (per WP:GNG). "Coverage" is guaranteed because the NTSB must prepare a report whether an airliner skidded off a runway or a Cesna ran into a hangar, yes? Interpretation of that report by genuine secondary sources would absolutely be significant coverage from reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some editors have clearly spent a great deal of effort writing what is otherwise an excellent article, there's no indication that this topic will have any lasting impact. Unless the incident results in changes to procedures or equipment, it's unlikely that it will be remembered and written about in the future. It's just news, and will be forgotten a year from now. Pburka (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong media and public interest that is likely to continue in the future. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Delete content and redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. --Nockayoub (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your comment. Are you asking to delete the section Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents? That is not what this AFD is for. Epic Genius (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event is certainly notable, and was all over news outlets and shut down LaGuardia for most of the day. It is likely there will be some changes made to policy and procedure as a result of the event. This is still very new, and the article is well written. Give it some time and see if anything comes from it before deciding to get rid of this otherwise fantastic article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Major accident that 1)heavily damaged a plane, 2) caused 24 injuries and 3)closed a major airport. Certainly a notable accident. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those are things that confer notability on a subject. By that logic, every suburban bus crash or hail storm would be notable. And we still haven't addressed the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be covering this at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have worked on Wikilinking, and categories for cross-referencing. Recommend at this point that discussion be closed with the result as "Keep, no consensus".

On what basis? An abundance of Wikilinks or categories is certainly not a valid reason for keeping something. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Two separate issues, difficult to make single sentences into separate paragraphs. My recommendation to "close: Keep, no consensus" is because there is no consensus in this discussion and in my experience based on many AfD discussions here is unlikely to be. When there is no consensus, generally articles are kept. To all editors, keep in mind I have only one !vote here to keep, everything else is merely a comment. I'm not stacking the straw poll. Juneau Mike (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus here is very easy to deduce. About half the editors here believe it should be kept because it "passes GNG" but haven't even tried to explain how it might overcome WP:NOT. Other keep contributors have relied on a very strained interpretation of WP:AIRCRASH which is a user essay and doesn't enjoy consensus enough to be elevated to policy or guideline. At least one other has been indef'd for trolling. There hasn't been a single policy-based contribution from "team keep". Those favouring deletion have opined that the article attempts to turn Wikipedia into something it is not; a newspaper, and have highlighted that the article relies on editor interpretations of government primary sources. Given that both are clear breaches of policy and that nobody has managed to provide a cohesive argument as to how this passes WP:EVENT, I'd say the closing admin will have a pretty easy job of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We respectfully disagree here. I give the average (established) editor here much more credit. Everyone, with the exception of said troll (if true) and his ilk, benefit this Wiki. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are entitled to as much credit as you and I; it's not a question of their value (or benefit) to the project. Determinations here are made on the basis of weight of policy-based argument. It's a bit hard, therefore, to weigh arguments not based on policy. To recommend, then, that a discussion be closed as keep (in effect, giving weight to weightless arguments) discourages those who might otherwise make policy-based keep arguments, on the basis that the job's been done. It hasn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion, based on long experience here, is that by far the best arguments have been made in favor of "keep" in regards to this article. I know you disagree. Fair enough. Maybe I will see you involved in other articles in the future. Take care. Juneau Mike (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the "arguments" in question your... learn'd... opinion is interesting, to say the least. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "long experience here" (23 AfDs in 7 years) is interesting also. 50% accuracy is a coin-toss and not a single "delete" vote. Just sayin'. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is so important to you. I've said my peace on the relevant Delta article here which I believe deserves a "keep". But since you brought it up, I've voted twice to delete, and once to merge. That's 15% of such discussions I have been involved with. But I tend to side on inclusion/relevance and good faith. 'Nuff said. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "not a single delete in a discussion with a definitive result" and one of those was a nomination, not a !vote, how's that? It's of no interest to me beyond your presumptive and instructive "recommendation" to closing admins on the back of your "experience based on many AfD discussions" (a little over 3 discussions a year). It was your claim, not mine. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juneau Mike, in order to avoid confusion, I've changed the two bolded "keep" mentions in this thread to unbolded and quoted, since you already have a bolded !vote earlier on this page. This will make it easier for whoever closes the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - arguments against deletion due to NOTNEWS have been made. While this event caused significant international media coverage which may provide arguments for deletion as NOTNEWS, one important point that was argued for keep is that this incident could very well cause changes in airline safety. Of significance in the story was this incident was a huge near miss, with the plane almost going in the water. IMHO, that is sure to create changes in airline safety. My humble opinion is wait and see instead of wholesale delete. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the deletionist side's only argument here is WP:NOTNEWS unless I am misinterpreting the discussion. However, if I could just throw in another 2¢, I would say that any significant accident involving a commercial airline flight deserves its own article, regardless of how much it did or didn't make the news. And I would write and contribute to such an article whether or not the subject made the news, inasmuch as I even now read and contribute to articles on air accidents that took place 20 or 30 years ago. Because:
1. There will always be reliable sources in the form of government transportation safety agency reports (notwithstanding troll comments about their usability in an article), and these reports will be extremely factual and unbiased, and won't contain the dumbing-down that the facts suffer anytime the mainstream media attempts to talk about aviation, and
2. This is the big one: air safety is an ongoing, constant evolution, and every major accident contributes in some way to the continuing process of improving air safety; having an article on nearly all significant accidents helps paint the overall picture of this evolution—that overall picture or story arc, if you will, which clearly belongs in an encyclopedia with the depth and breadth of Wikipedia. Darkest Tree Talk 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, but perhaps you could tell us HOW this accident contributes to the ongoing evolution of aviation safety. Because, at present, the article doesn't do so. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to. My point is that any significant air accident is noteworthy enough to have its own article. It's not like this is some vacuous fluff article on pop culture or entertainment. And since no one has mentioned this yet, Wikipedia is NOTPAPER and we're not in danger of running out of server space. Darkest Tree Talk 21:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep this on the basis that it was a dramatic near miss - nearly ended up in the drink and fuel tank ruptured. I'm sure there'll be lessons to learn from this.Mattojgb (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This wasn't simply overshooting the runway, but the aircraft went off the side of the runway while still travelling at a relatively high rate of speed...about 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). The incident caused significant damage to the aircraft. It is more than just a one-time news event, but an incident which will likely be referenced in the future when similar accidents occur. I also agree with the remarks by Darkest tree under the comment by FieldMarine a couple comments above. AHeneen (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just doesn't seem notable. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOTNEWS. No one will even remember this in a year. TL565 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 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. WP:SNOW early closure. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi (web browser)[edit]

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

This browser is quite far from being a released product. All we have so far is a "second preview" of a prototype. Neither in the literature there is any evidence of strong expectations by the internet communities about this software. Therefore the subject doesn't appear to have yet enough noticeability (and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a "teaser" for future softwares still in quite early development phases, and whose first release date is yet totally unknown and unpredictable). Considering also that the very first versions of this article looked like a "copy-paste" from the manifacturer's website (see also the article's talk), is it close to something "promotional"? L736E (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L736E

> This browser is quite far from being a released product. All we have so far is a "second preview" of a prototype.

The browser is not a "released product", but it is used/tested. The vivaldi-crew let users participate with the active development. I found out about that here: vivaldi-teamblog. That blog even announced a feature-request-poll and a high number of users took part: feature-poll (the number of participants is displayed after polling)

> Neither in the literature there is any evidence of strong expectations by the internet communities about this software.

I dont know how you want that to be proved. However, since vivaldi itself is a community (vivaldi is a social network and there is a browser with the same name) and its possible to take a look on the vivaldi-homepage, I think its enough to prove that the community is alive and "strong" whatsoever.

> ..., is it close to something "promotional"?

I dont think so. Vivaldi was already promoted on all IT-news-sites I know. Google and Bing give me reasonable results with the keywords "vivaldi browser". With google or bing i find blogs and news-sites reporting about the vivaldi browser and the sense of its existence (opera 10 or what was a feature-rich browser without addons. the later versions of opera were not feature-rich anymore - it became another addon-focused browser and many users were disappointed. vivaldi-people seem to expect/hope to get their feature-rich browser back (who has many features without installed addons))

--Meppll (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now i noticed it is worth mentioning there are two domains: vivaldi.com and vivaldi.net
This wikipedia-article is only informing about the website who is propagating the webbrowser - that website is accessible via vivaldi.com
The wikipedia-article is also saying something about "community" - it's website is accessible via vivaldi.net and that domain is not mentioned in this wikipedia-article.
So, someone may get the impression that the "community" is a hoax and doesnt exist. but actually it exists
--Meppll (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the cited independent third party refs, including CNET, Reuters and Ars Technica, establish the notability of the subject, as per WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I understand you may think it is an advertisement, Wikipedia is all about being an encyclopedia and this is just another browser to add to the list for reference. I think it is a very valuable addition to the Wiki because it offers insight on a modern browser and is just another addition to the growing web browser list. Thanks for raising this debate though, it is good to discuss. JC713 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All things considered, this is one of the situations that the problem can be fixed instead of eliminated. Cursory web search shows good material on secondary reliable sources on websites such as TechCrunch, TechSpot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, Softpedia, Gizmodo, PC World and ExtremeTech. Things that I would do instead of deleting would be revising the prose, deleting parts that are just reiterations of the infobox without additional value. There is a bit of raw download stat that should be deleted too. We need prose added from the mentioned source. I read some important things in the sources that does not appear in the article, e.g. how the browser caters to power users with quick commands. Also the citation style is also non-existent. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never heard of Vivaldi. If I had heard it mentioned somewhere, I'd certainly look it up on Wikipedia. Therefore I think the article ought not to be deleted. Some people will hear of it and look for it here. It should be here.

Its optimistic tone could well be toned down, if people think its never going to be a "thing". It could perhaps mention 'intentions' to develop the product instead of making it look like a sure thing. But the subject (the potential browser) needs to be here. --Hordaland (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Generally I support not a crystal ball, but here I'm inclined to wait some months. If nothing happens in 2015 please nominate the article again for deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indefinitely. Gmail was far from being released, for a while. Rust (the browser rendering engine) isn't released. Ideas like Cascadian independence don't seem feasible. Yet, all of these things have a place on Wikipedia. Just because something's new (but heavily featured in the press), does not mean that it shouldn't be featured on Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's greatest advantages over traditional encyclopedias was its freshness—it adapted to current times, and displayed up to date information. Zaixionito (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It looks like there is a pretty strong consensus already but I agree this should be kept. The fact that it hasn't been and may never be released is irrelevant. I had heard of it even before I saw the article on the various nerd blogs that I frequent and there seem to be decent references. I also googled "Vivaldi browser" and saw a lot of relevant links so even if the current refs aren't good (I didn't bother to check them) there seem to be lots of refs out there and the article should be improved not deleted. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is covered in depth by independent third party sources which are reliable. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite. The entire article is essentially an advertisement with statements like "The browser is aimed at hardcore technologists ..." If you guys really want to keep the article around, then your efforts would be better spent toning down the article's POV, not wasting time arguing about it on the AfD page. Use your efforts more constructively. 98.86.115.145 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the language is a bit wp:promotional and. Wp:pov but that is not a valid reason to delete the article. Just edit the text. Also, I don't even think the language is all that bad. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Wikipedia is littered with short throwaway articles about little-used, obscure, small computer programs or even their components (just take a look at Template:KDE) and someone wants to delete a thing that has actual news value? :) Kumiponi (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the worst article that I've seen. It's got coverage in reliable sources, and any promotional wording can be fixed through normal editing. If it doesn't ever go anywhere, I guess we can discuss a possible merger, but notability isn't temporary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 15 March 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) Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School-to-prison pipeline[edit]

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

The article is overly promotional and biased with no encyclopaedic content. It is based on the opinions of others. The bias starts right at the lead section. And the supporting paragraph is very short and almost absent. The article has no fundamental encyclopaedic components such as the history section or actors, rather, it is based on a student's point of view. This article is like a discussion essay that talks about the article in a different way that an encyclopaedia does. The article rarely talks about the topic in general as well. The article was WP:PROD recently, so I am writing this deletion discussion to cope with this.

If the deletion discussion fails, I would recommend a complete rewrite. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively, I'll say delete. Possibly an policy-compliant article could be written, but this isn't it. The first and most significant problem is original research. Many of the sources have only a tangential/passing reference to the subject of the article without discussing it in detail (e.g. [15] [16]). Several others are primary sources (e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20]). In its current form, this article is a creative, not a neutral, well-referenced, encyclopaedic article. If some secondary source that discuss the phrase extensively can be found, the article could be kept. I haven't been able to find them. Relentlessly (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually a very good article, for the editorial page of a newspaper but not for an encyclopedia. Written to promote policy so violates WP:NPV Borock (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long-standing article that has existed since 2011, and the subject is certainly notable (judging from a news search and a book search). That being said, it does need some work to comply with NPOV policies, and there appears to be myriad academic sources available that can be added to the article as it is rewritten over time. Fix it, don't just completely remove it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognized, widely-discussed modern social issue, with no shortage of scholarly articles nor books from reliable publishers. The current article needs a lot of work, but this isn't blow-up-and-start-over bad. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is quite notable as there are several books about it including:

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Structuring Legal Reform
Disrupting the School-to-prison Pipeline
From Education to Incarceration: Dismantling the School-To-Prison Pipeline
Transforming the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Lessons from the Classroom
Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse
Right to Be Hostile: Schools, Prisons, and the Making of Public Enemies
Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools

We should learn a lesson from such critiques of the zero-tolerance approach. Please see our editing policy and note that AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. S-to-P Pipeline is a notable topic. The article should be improved, but shouldn't be deleted. IjonTichy (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources to satisfy at least the GNG. POV is solid grounds for a rewrite and maybe even some cutting of text/sources, but not deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most notable and controversial topics in criminology and juvenile justice today. Almost every current college CJ textbook has a section on the topic; literally thousands of scholarly articles have been written on the topic in recent years. Please read WP:BEFORE. This article is not so bad that it needs blowing up; ordinary editing will work. We are not going to remove controversial topics. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gzuufy (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 March 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 deleted, G11. Cavarrone 06:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surendra Hiranandani[edit]

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

The sources either violate WP:BLPSPS (corporate website and genealogy.com) or are lists (Forbes entry), does not meet GNG Walkabout14 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:ADMASQ. From this, the SPA article creator Deepakyewale has an obvious conflict of interest. Pax 08:16, 14 March 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. Nakon 03:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Top 20[edit]

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

Single network chart with no ounce of third party notability or charting methodology and failing lists present at WP:BADCHARTS. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and per having a dubious methodology. It could be redirected to Radio Mirchi, but that article currently does not mention the chart. Cavarrone 06:48, 15 March 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. It's an interestign question whether a book can be notable when it has several RS reviews, but all of them say it is unimportant. By our current GNG standards, it is. I think that's a little ridiculous, but such is our guideline . I very much think it should change, but I can't close on the basis of what I think ought to be the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Confidential[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, non-notable but apparently was a popular series, (google reveals lots of booksellers and blogs only) by a non notable author, also up for afd Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Publishers Weekly reviewed the first book in the series (and didn't much like it) [21]. That's the only online independent reliable source I've found so far, but her Scholastic page indicates that School Library Journal reviewed it as well. [22] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Children's Book Review: Natalie's Secret by Melissa J. Morgan". Publishers Weekly. 2005-04-18. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  The review notes:
  Launching the Camp Confidential series, this lukewarm tale centers on an 11-year-old New Yorker whose mother sends her to Camp Lakeview for eight weeks.
  ...
  Despite Morgan's typecasting (the athlete, the comedienne, the practical joker, the manipulative bully), these young characters—Natalie included—are curiously bland, offering readers little incentive to reach for this month's second camp caper, Jenna's Dilemma (0-448-43738-4 ). Ages 9-12. (Apr.)
2. From School Library Journal (excerpt from http://www.amazon.com/Natalies-Secret-1-Camp-Confidential/dp/0448437376):
  Grade 4-6–Natalie Goode, 11, is a true city girl who loves all the wonderful amenities of her life in New York City. Imagine her trauma when her mother tells her that she is going to spend eight weeks at a camp in Pennsylvania. When she arrives, things are worse than she imagined. Her bunk is run-down, the showers are gross, and she finds a spider in the toilet. Fortunately, her bunkmates come from different places and Natalie begins to appreciate their unique talents and personalities. When she meets Simon, a cute fellow camper, things definitely begin to improve. However, complications arise when Natalie's father makes a surprise visit, for she hasn't told anyone that her dad is Tad Maxwell, the famous action-movie star. Soon, Natalie must face her new friends and deal with the fact that she hasn't been truthful. The first book in the series is a satisfying read. The subject matter and the characters are nothing new but fans of series books about girls will enjoy it.–Linda Zeilstra Sawyer, Skokie Public Library, IL
  This review is about the book Natalie's Secret #1 (Camp Confidential).
3. "Book World". Sunday Mail. 2007-03-11.
  The article notes:
  Camp Confidential - Natalie's Secret
  Melissa J Morgan
  RRP $9.95
  Natalie's Secret is the first book in the Camp Confidential series about a group of girls who have all found themselves at Camp Lakeview for different reasons. Each girl - Natalie, Jenna, Grace and Alex - is keeping a secret which could get in the way of them becoming friends. Natalie, 11, comes from New York and summer camp in Pennsylvania for eight weeks is not her idea of fun.
4. MacPherson, Karen (2005-07-23). "Book Corner". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  The article notes:
  It's not great literature, but the "Camp Confidential" series by Melissa J. Morgan makes diverting summer reading for middle-grade girls. Each of the four books in the series focuses on a particular character's experiences at Camp Lakeview. All of the typical pre-teen and teen situations are here -- best-friend problems, boy trouble, etc. The stories move quickly, and the characters are believable. (Ages 9-12)
5. From the journal Children's Literature (excerpt from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ttyl-melissa-j-morgan/1100537831):
  Children's Literature - Anita Barnes Lowen
  TTYL (talk to you later) promise the girls who shared Bunk 3C at an eight-week-long sleep-away camp. Through emails, instant messaging, and blogging, these far-apart friends keep in touch, give advice, and help each other work through the problems of boyfriends, middle school, and parents. There is Natalie who loves shopping, sushi, and hanging out with her best friend Hannah. But Natalie is growing up fast and has a new interest…boys! Now Hannah is acting weird. Could Hannah be worried that Natalie is outgrowing her? Grace discovers drama at camp. She wants to join the after-school drama club but her parents say no. Grace is not the kind of girl who normally goes against her parents' wishes, but "desperate times call for desperate measures, don't they?" Jenna is tired of shuttling back and forth between her newly divorced mom and dad. It is not fair she is missing her friends' parties because she is expected to spend every weekend with her Dad. Her parents are the ones who split up. So why is Jenna the one who is suffering? And Alex is discovering that middle school is a whole lot different from elementary school. She has to try out for soccer for the first time ever. Alex knows she will not be a star like she was in fifth grade, but will she even make the team? From the "Camp Confidential" series, this book is a quick, easy, and entertaining read for girls only.
  This review is about TTYL (Camp Confidential Series #5).
6. From the journal Children's Literature (excerpt from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ttyl-melissa-j-morgan/1100537831):
  Children's Literature - Julie Williams
  Jenna, Natalie, Grace, and Alex have a great summer being bunkmates at Camp Lakeview, but now that summer is over, each of them returns home to school. As they each make the exciting, yet scary transition into middle school, they also tackle minor problems that will require the support of others. Because of Jenna's parents' divorce, she must spend every weekend with her dad, causing her to miss weekend parties with her friends. After hearing about the illness of a fellow camper's dad, Jenna learns to be grateful for time spent with her own. Meanwhile, Natalie feels like things between herself and her best friend, Hannah, just are not the same. Natalie befriends a boy named Simon at camp, but after starting back to school, she finds herself liking Kyle as well. Hannah feels left out and thinks that Natalie just does not have time for her and a boyfriend. Grace has problems of her own: experience with drama makes her look forward to joining the drama club at school, but her parents refuse to allow it. Going against her parents, Grace attends drama club after school, until her parents put an end to it. Finally, Alex, who has always been good at soccer, finds that she is no longer the best, which limits her playing time. When Alex finally gets into a game and attempts to score a goal, she falls and sprains her ankle. Though potentially devastating, these challenges do not defeat Alex. Throughout each of their individual problems, the girls advise each other through email and instant messaging documents, which the author Melissa Morgan includes in the book. After all the problems are solved, the girls set a date for a camp reunion. Although these girls grow from childhood to adolescence,their problems make them realize that they have much more to learn. "The Camp Confidential TTYL" series explains the stories of these girls' lives at different stages, and Melissa Morgan ensures that one need not read the previous books to follow and enjoy the current installment. Reviewer: Julie Williams
  This review is about TTYL (Camp Confidential Series #5).
7. From the journal Children's Literature (excerpt from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/over-and-out-melissa-j-morgan/1100671255):
  Children's Literature Jenna Bloom, a notorious practical joker, enjoys another wonderful summer at camp until the snobby Blake Wetherly shows up. Her camp experience worsens when she fractures her leg and later gets blamed for pranks she did not pull. Feeling that life is not fair, Jenna begins to indulge in self-pity, jealousy and anger. As a result, she isolates herself from her friends. Determined to prove her innocence, Jenna discovers the identity of the camp prankster. At the same time, she learns the real meaning of friendship. Ultimately, she leaves camp with her friendships repaired and her name cleared. Unfortunately, Morgan’s novel falls short in its storytelling. Even though it is a part of a series, there is not enough character development to draw in readers. The entire story is focused on static characters and ends unrealistically. The plot and situations are superficial, petty and completely predictable. Though the author attempts to emphasize the importance of friendship, the message gets lost in an ending that seems rushed and underdeveloped. Morgan underestimates the intelligence of her target audience and leaves readers feeling indifferent to the fate of the characters. Reviewer: Alexia Murdock
  This review is about Over and Out (Camp Confidential Series #10).
8. From the journal Children's Literature (excerpt from http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/second-times-the-charm-melissa-j-morgan/1100650450):
  Children's Literature - Suzanna E. Henshon
  Have you ever dreamt of attending summer camp away from home? Natalie Goode can hardly wait for her second summer at Camp Lakeview, where she will reunite with the girls from bunk 3C. What could be better than seeing old friends and making new ones? Natalie is eager to reconnect with Alyssa, her best friend, and to see her potential boyfriend, Simon. But when Natalie arrives at camp, there's a girl named Tori, who seems to steal Natalie's thunder from the get-go. Not only that, but Natalie's not sure that she and Simon are really on the same page relationship-wise. What happens if the connection that Natalie feels isn't mutual? During the weeks at camp, Alyssa and Natalie stop spending time together, and Natalie becomes jealous of the glamorous Tori. Finally, after a heart-to-heart talk with Alyssa, Natalie realizes that the second time's the charm after all. Young girls will enjoy the latest addition to the "Camp Confidential" series. Reviewer: Suzanna E. Henshon, Ph.D.
  This review is about Second Time's the Charm (Camp Confidential Series #7).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Camp Confidential to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Camp Confidential series. Most of the sources are about books in the series. I think that it is best to have a single article about the books (and then do WP:SPINOFFs for any books that can have more written about them). Cunard (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Cunard. I also searched and quickly found reviews [23].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 March 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no other views in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made Wianta[edit]

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

No indication of notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made Wianta is on the GCE O-Level and A-Level Study of Visual Arts Syllabus (2015) and is a pioneering contemporary artist is many fields of artistry in Indonesia. Source: www.seab.gov.sg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houganghappyhouse (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GBooks turns up multiple book sources, including books entirely devoted to his work [24] [25]; the Rough Guide says he is "the best known internationally" of Balinese modern artists. [26], and the AP called him "one of the island's most famous artists" [27]. Here's a nice article from the New Straits Times. [28] More is available at GNews and HighBeam.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 March 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 Camp Confidential. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa J. Morgan[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG, non notable author, google reveals blogs and some fansites only. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camp Confidential, the series she wrote. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, which is required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I believe the series she wrote is notable per the sources I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Confidential.
No prejudice to undoing the redirect if editors find sources in the future that provide significant coverage about her.
Cunard (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camp Confidential.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the abysmal Camp Confidential article in the absence of coverage of the author. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 17 March 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. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Anderson[edit]

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

This is borderline, because the only thing potentially noteworthy about this person is the sheer number of times they have failed to win an election. However, seems to me to fail GNG and WP:Politician. One of the other Sharon Andersons should probably have this name space and if this article is kept, move it to Sharon Anderson (politician). I'm considering writing an article on this Sharon Anderson [29], who is way more notable. Gaff (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does running for office make someone a politician? If so, then that appears to be her only qualification for that label. Her blog is sharon4mnag.blogpsot.com. She seems more concerned in talking about her own life than about any political platform. Gee, it's almost hard to believe she lost each and every time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.0.92 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability standards for politicians. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 17 March 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 as hoax. No point in wasting any time on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Choo[edit]

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

Okay trying to find out anything about this guy-but it seems like this might be a hoax. The only name I could find on the IMDB was a Chinese actor even. Wgolf (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to be hoax. -Augustabreeze (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 March 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 Deleted as G11 and G12. Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates General Services Transport[edit]

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

Very long article without a single reliable source. Quite spammy, borderline CSD G11 in my opinion. Nothing to establish notability. Internet searching doesn't reveal significant third-party coverage. Much of the article content appears paraphrased from their website. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G11/G12 - Tagged as such as the text and the images have all been copied from there website, There's plenty of ways of advertising your buisiness but this place sure as hell ins't one of them. –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 10 March 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 Gerontology Research Group. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Looking at the arguments put forward, opinions in favour of keeping are clearly in a minority. Since a redirect was suggested and mention of Young added to the GRG article, a redirect has been the most popular outcome, and I am presuming that the majority of editors who expressed views favouring deletion would not object to a redirect. Michig (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)[edit]

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

This article has had a somewhat troubled history, thanks in no small part to the generally toxic environment of longevity-related articles. Besides the two AfDs this was also deleted per G4 in early 2011, and the undeletion of the original 2007 version occurred about a month and change ago. Since then a few more sources have been added to the article, but nothing approaching real substantial coverage. I found this to be a good analysis of the post-2007 sources added since the article's undeletion; basically they don't amount to anything more than some basic coverage, certainly not rising to the standard of notability. I'm pinging @Canadian Paul:, @DerbyCountyinNZ:, @Ricky81682:, and @David in DC: as people who are all familiar with this topic area.

Also, discussions on this topic have a nasty habit of eliciting serious canvassing violations and devolving into a race to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy. Regardless of the outcome, let's please try to avoid going around this loop yet again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until Supercentenarian Research Foundation is reliably sourced as having accomplished important work.

Relevant WP:NACADEMIC criteria:

1. "Significant contribution to his field." Google Scholar shows his papers typically have around a dozen citations, in a field (gerontology) where papers may easily have hundreds.
3. "Fellow of a prestigious group."The group he co-founded is not yet WP-notable, so membership isn't a great honor.
7. "Impact outside of academia." Being cited as an authority on human-interest trivia is cool, but not "a substantial impact".

His research area ("golly, how do they get so old?") could certainly grow into importance, and his seminal contributions could make him famous, but that's all WP:CRYSTAL for now. FourViolas (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect see below. FourViolas (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hey I'm no fan of this guy, having had tons of trouble with edits here on Wikipedia. But he appears to be the foremost expert in his field. Every time someone old dies the world newspapers quote Robert Young. Whether it's the Tokyo Times, the New York Times, the UK Metro, the NY Daily News, at CNN or in books. His sourced opinions are endless. Like him or not, when the press needs an expert opinion, he is the one they get. Considering how many small music bands or company CEO's are listed here, his sourced acknowledged expertise seems to warrant inclusion at Wikipedia as notable. He's sort of like the Kate Hutton of his field. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).
Here are the sources about the subject:
1. Malcolm, Andrew H. (2005-06-25). "Hitting the Big Eleven-O". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Then, the group's network of clever gerontology detectives like Robert Young seeks proof and insights.
  "The entire globe has been explored and mapped," Young says. "Now, we can start discovering the geography of the human life span."
  Young and others mine troves of data to verify the truly old, research their lives and uncover senior frauds.
  ...
  Young, the group's senior investigator, says few people have the ambition to reach 110. But, he notes, "At 109, given the alternative, 110 can seem acceptable."
  ...
  Young and group colleagues such as Louis Epstein often pore over old census data and military draft records.
  ...
  Young, who grew up fascinated by World War I tales told by an aged aunt, thinks there's much to learn about history from, say, an ancient war veteran or the child of a slave. He travels to birthday parties for listed super-centenarians, where he's treated like family.
  "I want to educate people on what it takes to live a very long time," he says. "It's not easy and it's not a circus sideshow."
2. White, Gayle (2006-02-08). "Supercentenarians giving researchers clues on longevity". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  The article notes:
  
  The ironically named Robert Young spends an inordinate amount of time with the very old.
  Young, 31, a Georgia State University student, researches supercentenarians -- people 110 and older -- for the Guinness World Records and for gerontology research centers. His specialty is confirming or disproving claims of advanced age from around the world.
3. Conwell, Vikki (2009-02-15). "Oldest people are his career Atlantan is expert on age champions". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets.
  The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older.
4. Bialik, Carl (2010-07-24). "Scientists Seek to Tabulate Mysteries of the Aged". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  The article notes:
  
  When Robert Young was little, he found himself wishing he had gotten to know the elderly people in his life before they died. "I wanted to meet them and stay around them first, because they would be passing away first," Mr. Young recalls. The younger people, he would get to later.
  Now Mr. Young's childhood inclination has turned into his profession, as the gerontologist tracks the world's oldest people for a variety of research groups.
  His work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers. Though major snags persist in the study of such a rare group of people, it has yielded interesting numbers about how rare it is to live to 110—and how likely those who get there are to reach 111, or beyond.
  ...
  Now Mr. Young works for Guinness as its head consultant on checking such claims, and also verifies claims for GRG.
5. Mandel, Brynn (2006-05-07). "Photographer traveled the world to snap the oldest among us". Republican-American. Archived from the original on 2015-01-26. Retrieved 2015-01-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Yet some embellish their ages upward, said Robert Young, who validates supercentenarians' ages for the Guinness Book of World Records and Gerontology Research Group, which maintains a list of supercentenarians that guided Friedman's travels. Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are honest, said Young, whose suspicions extend to a yogi master subject of Friedman's.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Robert Young to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Robert Young has been frequently quoted as an expert in The New York Times (link), the Los Angeles Times (link), and The Washington Post (link).
Cunard (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:ThaddeusB (who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox).
Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 27#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) participants User:Stalwart111, User:Hobit, User:Reyk, and User:CBDunkerson. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe he satisfies WP:BASIC. Looking through the sources, the Chicago Tribune article in 2006 is an in-depth article and not merely an interview. By itself, this isn't a strong case for notability, but there is another clause in WP:BASIC:"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." As Fyunck(click) points out above, he is interviewed in numerous articles on supercentenarians and appears to be the world's expert that everyone goes to, indicating that his coverage in these articles is not trivial. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was probably the most sceptical about Cunard's efforts (and request at DRV) to recreate the article, for all the reasons outlined by the nominator. I still fear this could become a magnet for POV pushing or promotion but that hasn't happened in the month since this was recreated. In the end, the subject technically passes, I think, and so other considerations are secondary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say, my scepticism was based on the past history of the article itself - Cunard made a strong case at DRV and then expanded on that to win me over. I appreciate his ping here, despite our different approaches at DRV. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Despite the bulk of the text quoted, it's the same insubstantial stuff over and over: he grew up fascinated by World War I, wished he'd known old people before they died, hopes to teach college someday, plus some puffy quotes. There's almost nothing about Young himself, and this is reflected in the article, which strains (to put it charitably) to find things to say:

Young is a graduate research assistant at Georgia State University No he's not; that was ten years ago.
previously worked for the U.S. Census Bureau Apparently he was an "enumerator" -- someone who rings your doorbell because you didn't mail back the census form.
Young searches for census reports, baptismal records, and other documentation to verify age claims Um, OK.
has met with Bettie Wilson, Susie Gibson, Moses Hardy Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan and other supercentenarians ... attends supercentenarians' birthday parties where he is warmly welcomed. WP:NOTINHERITED
Jerry Friedman credits Young with making his book, "Earth's Elders: The Wisdom of the World's Oldest People", possible by helping to find, document, and make contact with the elders covered in the book. Being thanked for research assistance isn't notability material.
Young also lectures on age research This is cited to a conference program [30] showing that Young gave a half-hour talk in 2005. That's not "lectures on age research."
founding member of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation Apparently founded in 2006 [31], its website hasn't been updated since 2010 [32]. Being founder of an organization which... well... which you founded, and nobody else ever mentions, isn't notability material.

Other than his birthdate, that's almost the entirety of the article. The media "quotes" are stuff like this (each bullet being the entirety of mentions of Young in a given article):

'In 2001, after combing the Internet and consulting with Robert Young, a gerontologist in Atlanta, Mr. Friedman packed his cameras and headed to Manchester, Mass., to meet Ann Smith, born March 2, 1891.'
'Robert Young, a senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records, said that research by his group, National Public Radio and others had been unable to locate any other surviving black World War I veterans. Only 10 to 12 American veterans of that war remain, Mr. Young said.'
'Meanwhile, a Maryland man ...turned out to be a mere 92. "We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, GRG's senior claims investigator. "He was listed as eight years old in the 1920 Census and 18 in the 1930 Census." ... Old people often feel ignored and discarded, says GRG's Mr. Young.'
'Emiliano Mercado del Toro, 115, of Puerto Rico is expected to assume the title of world's oldest person, said Robert Young, a Guinness researcher.'
'Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets. The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older.'

No amount of such stuff constitutes the "significant coverage [addressing] the topic directly and in detail" required by GNG, nor ACADEMIC's "Impact outside of academia". The topic area of longevity has been the locus of an almost unbelievable amount of spam and puffery here on WP, and this is just another part of it. EEng (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the press recognizes him as an expert in his field (clearly they do), then he is notable. We shouldn't and (normally don't) substitute our judgement for theirs, and previous bad behavior (which was mostly many years ago I might add) doesn't change that. Also, the GNG is met, as demonstrated by Cunard and others. Like it or not, Mr. Young is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that his expertise hasn't translated into coverage which actually establishes notability; what in EEng's analysis above do you disagree with? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng's analysis is mostly about the article's content, which is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with a short article that can't be expanded - plenty of notable subjects only warrant brief articles. As to notability, being an expert and quoted as such does establish notability. (Incidentally, he is also credited as an author of several academic papers on supercentenarians that have been cited by others, so its not just the press that considers him an expert on the subject.) We are not slaves to guidelines - they are called "guidelines" not "rules" for that reason. I also agree with Cunard's analysis of the sources that shows the GNG is met as more than 2 sources have substantial coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is relevant when that content clearly constitutes every anyone could think of to throw at the subject in hopes something notability-lending would stick -- except as seen above nothing does.

As to the "several academic papers on supercentanarians that have been cited by others", it appears that most or (almost) all of these were published in Rejuvenation Research a "fringy" [33] journal edited by [34] the authors of these very papers -- and when you look to see who the "10 citations" are, it turns out to be just citations by those same authors -- citing their own papers! (For example: [35].) EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced about the content argument. All that shows is the article will be short, which is not a problem... In regards to being cited, I referring primarily to "Survival of Parents and Siblings of Supercentenarians" published by Journals of Gerontology and "Characteristics of 32 supercentenarians" published by Journal of the American Geriatrics Society each has 45-50 citations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth (of eight) coauthors of one paper, and fifth (of seven) coauthors of another? Can someone work out the h-index, please? EEng (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tricky to work out because he has a very common name, but also because he seems to keep publishing the same paper over and over in different journals with different titles (basically just a big table of names and ages of old people) and should that really count as more than one? But anyway, his top citation counts on Google scholar are 49 for "Survival of parents and siblings", 45 for "Characteristics of 32 supercentenarians", 19 for "Typologies of extreme longevity myths", 10-10-10-9-8-6-4 for seven of the copies of the same table-of-old-people paper, 7 for "Global mortality rates beyond age 110", and 6 for "Supercentenarians and transthyretin amyloidosis". So the h-index is anywhere from 6 to 8 depending on how you count the duplicates. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On looking now, I see what you're saying about publishing the same material over and over. Honestly! EEng (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my keep vote is definitely not based on his papers, it is based on the press coverage. I was just saying he also has been cited by other academics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#7. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not quoted as an "academic expert". EEng (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's quoted as an expert on age research, which what he is notable for. I suppose you are saying that isn't an academic field, but even if true, I think the same principle applies. I make the same sort of argument about (for example) lawyers and doctors who don't usually publish significant number of papers, yet are quoted as experts by the press. Being cited as an expert by RS confers notability, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than [36], where does anyone call him an "expert"? EEng (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don't use the word "expert", the source by and large clearly treat him that way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the first couple Google search pages I found: the Hartford Courant, and KRTV News, and Hollywood Republican and Educational Media Reviews. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Republican and KRTV look to be the same excerpt, which leaves us with one brief comment from 2005, one from 2010, and one from 2013. Contrast that with James Andrews, who although he doesn't publish much is a very visible media presence in his field. Young doesn't even come close to that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a question of degree, I agree with you. It can certainly be debated on the wording of expert in the article. I simply answered the above query "where does anyone call him an "expert"? In a quick search, others do call him an expert. They may be few in number or in scope, but other sources do call him such. Not so sure about the term "academic expert"... he is probably more like Guinness's foremost research expert on super-centenarians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To really understand what's going on here, and to put these "media expert" claims in context, one must really read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher). EEng (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The Chicago Tribune article is the only one that comes close to taking a look at Mr. Young as its principal subject. There would need to be multiple such articles -- ideally focused even more explicitly on him -- to establish notability. -Pete (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Redirect to Gerontology Research Group, per John Carter below. -Pete (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Despite the subject's clear failure to pass WP:PROF, I think the Chicago Tribune 2006 and Wall Street Journal 2010 articles may be enough for WP:GNG. But the article should be stubbed back to what can be sourced to those two articles, which are the only ones with any depth of coverage of the subject. In particular, the mutually inconsistent "he is a consultant for Guinness/no, he is a grad student/no, he is a senior claims investigator/no, he spends his time going to old people's birthday parties" all sourced to primary sources or articles that mention him in passing should be cut, as should all the fluff pseudo-sources about old people that quote him but are not about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Czolgolz (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading through all the rationales here, pro and con, I am persuaded by the editors who look at the content of the few press articles rather than just at their existence. Wikipedia has got to stop being punked by anyone who can issue a press release that is taken up by a reporter hungry for a story. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed analysis across two AFDs (8 years apart), a DRV and other discussions elsewhere substantiates editors' unwillingness to be "punked". That rather simplifies the argument, too, which relates to whether the coverage is significant coverage which is a discussion well beyond mere existence. In short, everybody here is discussing the content of those few press articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably the most non notable individual I've ever seen with an extant article. No real justification to keep produced so far. - Galloglass 03:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First let me assure Cunard there is nothing "weak" about my delete vote. My first choice would be to 'Delete and Salt' but there's always the remote chance that the subject may in some future date actually become notable. I would reluctantly accept a 'Redirect' but I do believe a straight delete is still the most appropriate choice.

Why is this the most appropriate choice? well this article was initially created and maintained and kept in existence by the subject and a large number of sock puppets controlled by this individual, in clear and flagrant breach of WP:COI .

We were told that he was notable due to his extensive press coverage, which on close examination in the 2007 AfD turned out to be a small collection of passing mentions with virtually no information on the subject. These decade old articles are now the basis for the resurrection of this article, again with no new information of any substance whatsoever added in the intervening years.

We were also informed that the subject was notable as he was a contributor to Guinness records, well I was actually a record holder in the book for many years but that doesn't mean I meet WP:N any more than the subject does. Where in the notability requirements does it cover maintaining a small database and passing along information that's available to any undergraduate researcher with a small amount of nous?

Finally we have these citations on the above mentioned small database which on close examination, like it did several years ago is a small, somewhat incestuous group of non-notables citing each other. Again, no change from the first AfD.

I really do wonder what went though the thought processes of whoever re-created this article as nothing new has been added to suggest the subject is any more notable now than in 2007. I do hope this meets your requirement for 'depth' on my delete vote Cunard. Regards - Galloglass 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lest anyone think Gallo's reference to sockpuppets (though perhaps meatpuppets would have been more accurate), and Blade's reference to the "army of acolytes", are hyperbole, consider this bizarre post from the Arbcom case [37]:

"ban me however long, i deserve it, but Robert young and the grg/wop will NEVER be silenced, we have science on our side"

EEng (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - clearly he's cited by the media, and he's used by GRG and Guinness. Does he deserve to be cited? Probably not, but that's not our problem. The *fact* that he's cited should be enough for us. Because he's cited, someone might want to learn more about him - and Wikipedia is the go-to place for that sort of information. And, of course, if his article ends up being a short piece that highlights his lack of qualifications, well, that's also not our problem. Rklawton (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was deleted before basically because the purported sources didn't amount to anything more than passing mentions. Adding some more of the same doesn't fix that. The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV, and that is vital because this article lies in the toxic intersection between biography, fringe medical claims and profitable quackery. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the last deletion decision was a solid decision. I've reviewed the "new" evidence, and nothing there justifies this recreation of previously deleted article. Biography of a former grad student. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline notability per GNG. Highly cited person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument about notability as an academic doesn't get off the starting block, as he is not an academic. The mentions in newspapers aren't impressive: the Metro (UK) is a free sheet from the stable of the Daily Mail, itself a tabloid that's reliable for very little. He doesn't do statistics, just finds and keeps records of very old people and their deaths. A worthy activity, but then so is writing reviews on IMDB. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - as it's not an article filled with promotional crap, and the subject is on the edge of notability. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial change of reliable knowledge about this subject from eight years ago. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you to the editor who added the {{notvote}} template. Many of the recent "delete" votes are very weak. Several are just bare assertions, having not explained why the sources are insufficient. These are WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE votes (Capitalismojo, Czolgolz, and Galloglass).
Guy's argument that "The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV" is unconvincing. How does the article in its current state not comply with WP:NPOV? WP:NPOV should be easy to maintain. If non-neutral material is added in the future, it can be just be removed.
Itsmejudith talks about the Metro being unimpressive, but she doesn't indicate why the Chicago Tribune 2006 and Wall Street Journal 2010 articles mentioned by David Eppstein are insufficient.
Cunard (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak? I spent an enormous amount of time trying to find the telegraph uk ref from 2007. Couldn't find it. All but one of the other refs are mere passing references to the subject. Hence my belief that it doesn't meet the GNG. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "keep" comment did not reflect your research, which is why I called it weak. Now that you have explained your vote in more detail, I withdraw that comment. We differ on whether the sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is a reasonable difference of opinion. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, for my full opinion opinion on this subject I suggest you read the first AfD, Plenty of Depth there and quite happy to repost here if you really want me to? - Galloglass 08:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first AfD, so no need to repost your comments here. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I think I do need to expand my submission as most contributors here will not be familiar with the previous AfD and all the salient points are still relevant as there has been no change in the supporting evidence for the subjects notability or rather lack of it. - Galloglass 09:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we have no idea whether the article violates WP:NPOV or not, due to lack of in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Much of the article does reflect some extremely unreliable sources, which is a bit of a red flag. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in the article are unreliable? Cunard (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He deserves an article for the work he has done with supercentenarians. I don't see any reason to delete it at all. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Source I'm searching Newspapers.com and I have found an in-depth article from 1986: White, Gayle (29 July 1986). "Maximum Lifespan 120 Years". Indiana Gazette. p. 8. Retrieved March 5, 2015 – via Newspapers.com. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's correct, it would make the subject 11 or 12 years of age when this was written in 1986. However it states in the article he is 31. A bit of a disparity there me thinks. I suspect if we look at the previous sources this will be one of the same press releases that have already examined and found wanting. - Galloglass 08:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more likely, since the article was published in 1986, he was 31 in 1986 and he is much older than what is listed in the article. He was probably born in 1955. This article was published again two years later in 1988. I think you are correct that it is likely the basis for the Chicago Tribune article.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I looked at the original newspaper and it was published in 2006, so for some reason, newspapers.com has attached the wrong publication date to the article. They also have it listed as published in 1988, when in fact it was published again a week later in 2006.--I am One of Many (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even more of a clarification This is a reprint of the Chicago Tribune article. Jeesh. EEng (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification It's not a reprint, but the two articles share 90% of the text in common. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven't sake -- don't you know what it means when an article is tagged (AP)? Just because one paper cut 50 words because they needed more space for Aunt Ethel's Surefire Tollhouse Cookies Recipe doesn't make them different articles. EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. EEng's detailed analysis is persuasive, and remains so despite Cunard's rewrite. From the current state of the article I can determine that he's a person who works for Guinness, attends birthday parties a lot, 13 years ago was a research assistant for a non-notable author who wrote a non-notable book, and was mentioned in passing once or twice in a prominent newspaper. The volume of text now spent on AfDs for this article certainly exceeds the subject's contributions as a "quoted expert". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very selective reading of the article. Here is information from one of the articles that provide significant coverage about the subject:
Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's "work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers."
Helping to create a new branch of demography is considered by The Wall Street Journal worthy of providing "significant coverage" about. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am persuaded by EEng. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let's look at the various arguments for deletion;

'News accounts only mention him in passing, there is no substantial coverage' - First, I'd argue that 'passing mention' in hundreds of news articles (written at different times by different journalists for different newspapers)[38] more than qualifies in establishing notability (i.e. frequently quoted expert)... but it really doesn't matter because this repeatedly cited reason for deletion is also just flat out false. This article is about Young. So is this one. And this one. That's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
'Nothing in the content of the article makes him seem notable' - See WP:NNC and WP:ARTN. Our opinion on whether a particular subject or various details about them are notable is irrelevant. If, for some reason, virtually every major english language newspaper in the world decided to mention in passing, repeatedly over the course of several years, that 'Bobby Exampilus has red hair', and then three of them wrote articles about Bobby commenting on how frequently he has been mentioned and other details about his life... then Bobby is notable. The fact that there is nothing notable about having red hair doesn't matter. If the news media has taken significant note of a person then that person is notable, whether you think the reasons for the media doing so are valid or not. Wikipedians are not supposed to form their own opinions on whether a subject is notable or not. They are supposed to observe whether reliable sources have done so.
'He isn't really an expert' - Again, whether someone qualifies as an expert in our opinion is irrelevant. Only whether they are treated as such. The wording of the notability guidelines is clear; "...the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Young has been quoted in virtually every major english language newspaper in the world (and some non-english ones as well) several times a year for decades. He's an expert. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that he is THE expert that the US news media almost invariably goes to for information about extreme age claims.

I won't even bother with arguments related to Young's history with some Wikipedians, as it should be obvious that they have no bearing on notability. The subject is notable, both because he has been frequently quoted as an expert AND because there has been significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. CBD 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Many of the delete arguments seem to be substituting their own judgement ("he hasn't done anything worthy of an article") for that of RS, who do treat him as a notable expert. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is sufficiently an expert to qualify. He's not a purely academic researcher, but a research for a major non-academic publication in the field, but this comes close enough to the intent of WP:PROF. That his judgments are used by this source, shows that he is an authority. That we have somewhat different and probably higher standards in this field than that publication, does not make him less of an authority. He's cited enough that he meets WP:GNG also. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "intent" of PROF is what PROF itself says: to recognize persons engaged in "scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." The only parts of PROF that could conceivably apply are these:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources ... the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, "fluid mechanics", "Drosophila genetics" are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects.

Gerontology is a scholarly discipline. Keeping your finger on the pulse (if the image may be forgiven) of the 30 oldest people in the world, so that when one of them dies you're the first to issue a press release saying how old he or she was, and who's next on the Angel of Death's target list, isn't a scholarly discipline.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity ... for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.

Note the words as an academic expert. Organizations and governement agencies routinely have spokesmen who are frequently quoted in various contexts, over decades. Sometimes such spokesmen become themselves notable, sometimes not, depending on whether (for whatever reason) they themselves garner coverage. Here's a good example of someone who was quoted many thousands of times in the media, for more than 30 years, but who himself was non-notable [39]. Short, informational quotes based on what is to a large degree the work of others doesn't make you an expert, just an eager mouthpiece.

EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This 2005 Associated Press article establishes that he was consulted on longevity as early as 2003: Kunzelment, Michael (30 December 2005). "In search of wisdom". The Salina Journal. p. 26. Retrieved March 6, 2015 – via Newspapers.com. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same AP story we've seen over and over. Its text on Young reads, in its entirety,

Before he could embark on his globe-trotting search, Friedman needed a "compass" to find the world's oldest people. He fond one in Robert Young, an Altanta-based investigator for the Gerontology Research Group, which keeps a global database of supercentenarians.

As someone said above, helping a non-notable author write a non-notable book doesn't make you notable. EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It really is ironic that The Blade of the Northern Lights complains of canvassing violations when he has decided decided to "ping" a certain group of users WHO ARE POEPLE THAT TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM. Please note this discussion on his talk page in which he appears to be plotting with EENg about the best time to nominate this for deletion.

That is my first point. My second point is in response to the following statement by the user Guy: "The article was deleted before basically because the purported sources didn't amount to anything more than passing mentions. Adding some more of the same doesn't fix that. The lack of depth in coverage makes it impossible to ensure NPOV, and that is vital because this article lies in the toxic intersection between biography, fringe medical claims and profitable quackery." ---> Mr Young does NOT sell products or do anything that could be construed as quackery. He works on a voluntary basis for the GRG, a non-profit organisation. As far as I can see this is a WP:BLP violation, and the user in question should provide a source to back this up or remove it.

My third point is that many of these comments are unfair, comparing what he does to "stamp collecting" and other putdowns. He has 23 published scientific citations and is often quoted in the media. I'm not necessarily saying that this is enough for him to be considered notable but to accuse someone of "quackery" and compare their working to stamp collecting is not on. --Ollie231213 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, yeah I thought that was pretty funny myself. Sort of a "don't do what I'm doing" retort. Does their planning sound like a vendetta, yes it does, but at least it's in the open here at wikipedia and not behind closed doors in personal emails. They weren't trying to hide their dislike of this article and Robert Young's profession. As for points 2 and 3, yes the "fringe medical claims and profitable quackery" statement is ridiculous and shows IDONTLIKEIT status, but it's no more than what we see in many other AFD's. Or at least I see that kind of statement quite often. Maybe I've developed a thicker skin through the years, but I assume whoever closes this will look at that statement as useless and throw out the editor's argument completely. The thing is we have articles on wikipedia with far less published citations, or articles on people who are simply CEO's of companies. No one complains all that much since wikipedia usually errs on the side of inclusion. But RYoung has many people mad at him (often for good reasons) and that seems to have translated into not liking anything about his profession also. There doesn't really seem to be a consensus forming here one way or the other so this will likely be closed as "keep" to be on the safe side of things. It's just one little article that gets some hits every time someone very very old is in the news and Robert Young's name gets mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we begin the descent in Graham's hierarchy which Blade of the Northern Lights warned about when he made this nomination.

I pinged everyone who participated in the first AfD [40] -- that's not canvassing. This has nothing to do with personal dislike for Young or what he does, but for the relentless, unembarrassed self-promotion which wasted thousands of editors hours here until he was finally banned from longevit-related topics, then later blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry in evading that ban. If I thought he was notable I wouldn't care a whit, but he's not.
BotNL and I didn't "plot the best time to nominate" -- we talked about how long we should wait for new sources to appear (demonstrating notability) before nominating (assuming appropriate sources didn't appear, which they didn't).
The idea that Young has "23 published scientific citations" is laughable. His own LinkedIn page [41] lists eleven publications.

Two are the ones mentioned earlier in this discussion, for which he's (respectively) the sixth of eight authors, and fifth of seven.
One more, for which he's the second author, has six citatations.
The rest were published in Rejuventation Research, which might charitably be described as "fringe" [42] and more candidly as a vanity journal, especially given that one of Young's coauthors is on the journal's editorial board. These papers are just one and two pages long, being nothing more than tables of names, ages, etc. of old people organized in various ways. Each has something like 5 to 10 citations each but -- surprise! -- when you look at the citations, they're all Young and his coauthors citing themselves! ( e.g. [43]). It's all smoke and mirrors.

EEng (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a reasonably good case that he is not particularly significant to science. Indeed, if I were building my own encyclopedia, I would likely not include him. However, I haven't seen any convincing arguments that he does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. There is enough in-depth material to write a short article and whether we like it or not, he is considered an expert on longevity claims based on all the sources that cite him.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your not asserting that Blade and I are engaged in some conspiracy. Now let me ask you something... Do you agree he doesn't meet ACADEMIC point 1, The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed? EEng (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ACADEMIC #1 applies to this case. The case for notability turns on GNG and BASIC. The sources taken as a whole provide a convincing case that he is consider a notable expert on longevity claims. Nobody else is consistently interviewed in these cases. As I said on Blade's talk page a few weeks ago, this is a very borderline case that I believe tips to notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relieved at your response -- ACADEMIC is a nonstarter if you bother to actually look at the publications. Which are the sources you would combine per BASIC? EEng (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Have any of the people I pinged had any impact on this discussion? No? OK, so let's set that aside. EEng's comment about the relentless promotion extends beyond Young himself and to an army of acolytes who have over the course of several years obstructed all efforts to clean up their little fiefdom; look at WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts for one of the most spectacular blowups, then imagine running into that literally everywhere you turn. Furthermore, you seem to have the incorrect impression that I have some sort of personal problem with Young. I actually think he's doing good work, but that it doesn't translate to Wikipedia notability. Beyond that, EEng has summarized the sourcing problems well enough that I don't feel a need to rehash them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat: I don't give a monkeys about the outcome of this AfD. What bothers me is the slandering of Mr Young based on inaccurate information. He is NOT A QUACK, that plainly untrue. His LinkedIN page does not list ALL of his citations. Now let me respond to this: "This has nothing to do with personal dislike for Young or what he does, but for the relentless, unembarrassed self-promotion which wasted thousands of editors hours here"---> Please tell me exactly what this "self-promotion" is. Do you mean promoting himself as an expert in the field of longevity research on Wikipedia? Because there's nothing wrong with experts trying to lead a group of editors to improve the encyclopedia, despite what Jimmy Wales would have you think. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can accuse me of causing a "descent in Graham's Hierarchy" but let's just consider the situation for a moment: Mr Young is being accused of quackery, being slandered by being compared to a "stamp collector", the extent of his citations are not being fully recognised and the journals that are, like Rejuvenation Research, are being trashed as "fringe". Then the AfD starter complains of canvassing (after having an exchange with another user in which they discuss tactically timing the starting of it) and then decides to ping other users who he knows will likely agree with him. And you complain about name-calling? You referred to the editors of longevity articles as "the longevity fanboys". EEng called it "the Vortex of Crazies". So we see hypocrisy here yet again. Like I say, I don't care whether this article is deleted or not, but this AfD is a total joke. --Ollie231213 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in agreement with Ollie231213, I have no opinion on the way this Afd goes, but I do feel a bit uneasy about the way Young is being discussed here. I will not go into details as Ollie has covered this comprehensively above, but I would remind people we are here to discuss whether an article about Robert Young is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, not to exchange personal opinions about Young's integrity or credibility. Let's stick to the facts guys. JKSD93 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason Ollie chose to import comments made elsewhere into this discussion, so they are responded to below. EEng (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Remember, you asked.

No apology is needed for calling longevity-related topics here at WP a "vortex of crazies". It surely is -- or I should say was until ArbCom took things in hand -- and this is well known to anyone who was here for the party. From your edit history, you weren't here so you may be forgiven for not knowing this, but don't take my word for it -- read what Arbcom said here --

WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms.

As for Young specifically, a good introduction is this discussion [44] in which he describes himself as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet. There are other people who do nations such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, the UK, Australia, etc. Thus this is only a 'one-person job' because I'm at the top of the organizational pyramid." Four years later Arbcom found:

Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a variety of inappropriate conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([45], [46], [47]); sustained edit-warring ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]); misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground ([59], [60], [61], [62], [63]); and inappropriate canvassing ([64]).

For the full jaw-dropping compendium of Young's bizarre behavior over the years see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Particularly illuminating discussions are this one and this one (the second being the Goossenaerts discussion Blade linked a few posts above -- highly recommended).

Rejuvenation Research is indeed a fringe vanity journal. Again, no apology needed. And this is what Blade of the Northern Lights meant about this matter being at an intersection involving quackery -- the field of "Anti-Aging Medicine" (so called -- there's no such recognized specialty) is rife with quackery. No one's said, nor is anyone saying, that Young is himself a quack, merely that the inexplicable intensity of feeling that has surrounded many WP discussions on longevity are undoubtedly partly due to such interests, whether the direct participants know it or not.
Go ahead and list additional publications by Young beyond those on his Linkedin page. But please -- first check (a) whether they're published in Rejuvenation Research or other fringe/vanity journals; (b) whether he's a primary author or one of eight; (c) what kind of citation count it gets not counting Young and his coauthors citing themselves.

Like I said -- you asked. EEng (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a whole lot to add to that, except that as stated this problem crops up everywhere in this topic. See here, here, the second Goossenaerts AfD, and here for various degrees of additional nastiness. Not to mention this, an incident where he and his Wikipedia followers prematurely declared someone dead because "the GRG" and told people on-wiki to e-mail him for evidence; it ultimately required both family members of the person and outside intervention on Wikipedia to correct this. The result is the giant walled garden we see today, which includes this article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-meaningful academic standing, doesn't quite make the grade of substantial coverage of Young by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Slightest possible keep more or less as per DGG. By which I mean if the useful content related to him and his work can be reasonably covered in any other existing article, turn this into a redirect and do so. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - has anything changed since the last time this article went up for deletion? That is to say, is it just the same old crap but more of it? Rklawton (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminating question. Since the article was deleted in 2007, two articles mentioning Young have appeared:

This one [65] in 2009; the entirety of its text on Young is this:

Robert Young says he believes that age is just a number -- no matter how high it gets. The aptly named Young has spent 20 years studying the older set and maintains a database of verified supercentenarians -- people age 110 and older. Young's work came into focus recently with the Jan. 19 death of Beatrice Farve of Brunswick, who at 113 was listed by Young as the second-oldest person on Earth. ...

What began as a hobby when Young was 12 has blossomed into a career as a senior claims researcher with the Gerontology Research Group and senior gerontology consultant with Guinness World Records. He never met Farve, but Young has met 17 supercentenarians, including two Mississippi women who changed his perspective on living a long life. ...

People who live a long life can remain vibrant and active, Young said. Science can extend the life spans of organisms such as yeast and flatworms, he said, but has yet to unlock the secret to human longevity. When that happens, Young said, "it will be the biggest breakthrough in human history, save possibly the advent of the nuclear age."

This one [66] in 2010:

When Robert Young was little, he found himself wishing he had gotten to know the elderly people in his life before they died. "I wanted to meet them and stay around them first, because they would be passing away first," Mr. Young recalls. The younger people, he would get to later. Now Mr. Young's childhood inclination has turned into his profession, as the gerontologist tracks the world's oldest people for a variety of research groups. His work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers. ... Now Mr. Young works for Guinness as its head consultant on checking such claims, and also verifies claims for GRG. ...

About 800 million people, or less than one-eighth of the world's population, live in places that, at the turn of last century, had birth records reliable enough to be trusted, according to Mr. Young.

EEng (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean articles specifically about Robert Young I assume? Because there are hundreds of newspapers/magazines that have mentioned Robert Young as the head Gerontologist of Guinness World Records and their goto guy for information since 2007. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean articles actually saying something about Young beyond, "Old Person X died this morning, said Robert Young, Senior Claims Investigator for the Gerontology Research Group". EEng (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What utter nonsense.

The article as it stood immediately prior to deletion in 2007
The article as it stands now
The article as it stood prior to nine references being deleted by... you
Hundreds of articles mentioning Young published since the deletion not cited to avoid redundancy

A bit more than 'two' new articles any way you look at it. CBD 06:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the nine references deleted were trivial mentions of Young obviously quoted from press releases e.g.

[67] She was 115 years, 220 days old, said Robert Young, a senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records.

[68] Senior database administrator for the national Gerontology Research Group, Robert Young, confirmed that Johnson was the oldest verified American man, although there are several women known to be older.

Another was a link to a conference program from 2005 showing that Young had given a 30-minute talk [69], used to support the statement that Young "lectures" (present tense) on age research. EEng (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per EEng - no evidence of notable academic standing or WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think John Carter hit the right idea here. From the above it is abundantly clear that Young fails WP:ACADEMIC by a mile. EEng's detailed analyses have also made it clear that notability under GNG is marginal, at best. Given that whatever notability there is, is related to Young being the spokesperson of the Gerontology Research Group, I think that redirecting this to that article, adding a single phrase to that article ("It's spokesperson is Robert Young" or something like that, with the one AP source that gives a more than in-passing mention of Young) would seem to be the best solution. --Randykitty (talk) 6:29 am, Today (UTC−4)

I think this is an appropriate solution. EEng (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at "weak keep" so wouldn't strongly object to a redirect. I think a stub is a better solution for readers (because I think there would genuinely be interest in the guy) but I won't die in a ditch over it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this wrong, but we only care if you die in a ditch if you're 110+ years old. EEng (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Well put. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Randykitty. I don't think Young and the GNG have independent notability from each other, and the GNG seems more appropriate for an umbrella article. I have struck my earlier "weak keep" !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ (changed from Delete) per Randykitty to Gerontology Research Group, with a sentence naming his as spokesperson, citing Bialik or Conwell. Many thanks to Randykitty for proposing a good way out of this subjective squabble. FourViolas (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate "redirect" vote. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above editors, or delete. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There seems to be little extra material compared to the previous AfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per those immediately above, because being an employee (even a relatively prominent one) of a notable organisation does not make a person independently notable. Relentlessly (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with a redirect. Randykitty's redirect and "ad[d] a single phrase to that article" comment is imprudent. The article currently provides several paragraphs of sourced information about the subject:
Born in 1974 or 1975, Young was raised by his mother in a single-parent household and has four siblings. He told the Chicago Tribune in 2006: "We were so poor, a trip to McDonald's once a year was considered a treat."
In the mid-1990s, he lived in Florida with his father for two years before he moved back to Atlanta in 1997. He worked for Kroger and Pizza Hut and in 1999 enrolled as a part-time student at Georgia Perimeter College. Around that time, he became a volunteer at the Gerontology Research Group, an organization that follows the world's oldest people. As a young child who was first drawn to the subject at age 12, Young regretted not having substantial relationships with the older people in his life who had died. As an adult, Young became intrigued by supercentenarians' longevity, having become awed by a University of Georgia study about them. After gaining experience in the gerontology field, he began to receive monetary compensation for his research.
In 2002, Young started helping Jerry Friedman locate and catalog the old people in Friedman's 2005 book Earth's Elders: The Wisdom of the World's Oldest People. In a 2006 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Friedman said, "It was primarily because of [Young] I was able to do this book." Young verifies people's ages for Guinness World Records and Gerontology Research Group. He does the verifications by reviewing documents from baptisms and census data, as well as newspaper articles. Young attends the birthday parties of verified supercentenarians where he is "treated like family" according to the Los Angeles Times.
Carl Bialik of The Wall Street Journal wrote that Young's "work and that of other researchers' has helped to create a new branch of demography: Statistics about the world's best agers."
He attended Georgia State University.
This is encyclopedic biographical information sourced to the high quality sources The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Redirecting this article is a very poor option because there would be only two choices:
1. Erase the enyclopedic biographical information quoted above.
2. Move all of the information to the Gerontology Research Group article where it would dominate that article and be undue weight.
It is far better to have this material be in Robert Young's own article rather than the organization's article to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. Biographical information about Young's early life and early interest in gerontology belongs in Young's article, not the Gerontology Research Group's article.
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
It is not credible to say that this article from the Chicago Tribune, this article from The Wall Street Journal, this article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and this article from the Los Angeles Times do not "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".
If the sources did not provide Young with "more than a trivial mention", it would be impossible to write a 301-word "biography" section that does not use original research and is sourced only to reliable sources.
Many editors seem to be substituting their own judgment for that of high quality reliable sources that deem him notable enough to provide "significant coverage" about. Or they have strong negative feelings about the subject's past actions on Wikipedia. I strongly agree with this comment from Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) and this comment from Ollie231213 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard where are these " high quality reliable sources" as we've seen no evidence of any such sources so far. If you have them please produce them as nothing we've seen so far approaches even a satisfactory source, let alone one of "high quality". - Galloglass 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it is also worth noting that the material which is sourced can in many cases be seen as being basically indiscriminate collection of information. I would love to see how anyone can say his working for Kroger and Pizza Hut is even tangentially related to his notability as an old age researcher. The simple fact that minor, sometimes inconsequential and even trivial, information can be gathered really isn't a solid basis for claiming notability, given the wide amount of information from various sources on virtually everyone living today. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter where they're published, sources must be evaluated in context for the assertions they make, and there's a big difference between news reporting and human-interest puff-pieces. which is what these are. "We were so poor ... lived in Florida with his father... worked for Kroger and Pizza Hut ... became a volunteer ... drawn to the subject at age 12 ... regretted ... intrigued ... awed ... attends the birthday parties" -- this is lightweight background, self-reported by the subject. While some of it (at least, that which doesn't report his internal thoughts and emotional states at various ages) could in principle be verified independently, they clearly weren't. Nor do we expect them to be, because the discerning reader understands the difference (and here we return to my original point) between news reporting and unverified human-interest puffery. In this sense they can be treated as reliable only marginally and with great caution (e.g. all these statements should be attributed in the article‍—‌"Young says ... according to Young" and so on). When, as here, pretty much everything available must be qualified this way, then there is indeed an almost complete lack of reliable sources. EEng (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article is applicable. The information is encyclopedic because it provides biographical background about Young's early life. It does not need to relate to his notability. If high quality reliable sources—Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times—deem that information worthy of reporting, then that biographical information is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The details show Young's path from being raised by a single mother to becoming a consultant for Guinness World Records. This is news reporting—not puffery—because the sources do not use promotional or sensational language.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations says:

"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

Clearly, the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times are all very well-established, reputable outlets.

The articles mostly use "statements of fact" for Young's biographical details, so per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline those should be considered facts until or unless contradicted by other reliable sources.

Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you're right that notability doesn't limit article content, the opposite extreme‍—‌"If high quality reliable sources ... deem that information worthy of reporting, then that biographical information is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia"‍—‌is equally invalid, because (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE) "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is, in fact, one of the best examples of a subject to which WP:NOPAGE applies that I've ever seen‍—‌I highly recommend that my esteemed fellow editors give it a read. EEng (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Young's upbringing and previous employment is not indiscriminate information. That is standard information for a Wikipedia biography. In what way does including this information violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE?

WP:NOPAGE says (bolding and italics added for emphasis):

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, and so the amount of content and details should not be limited by concerns about space availability.

A merge to another article will cause standard biographical information about Young's upbringing and past employment to be lost, which is why, in my editorial judgment, this should be a standalone article. A merge will not lead to "more context"; it will lead to "less context" about Young's upbringing and past employment.

Cunard (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerontology Research Group. The rather small amount of material directly related to this subject's claims to notability can easily be included there without any weight considerations. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The arguments that the article should be deleted (or 'redirected') for lack of notable information about the subject and 'weak' sources might be more compelling if people were not also actively removing notable information and sources from the article. This is how the article stood at the start of the discussion. Can anyone really argue that removing, "... frequently cited by the news media as an authority on age verification", and the references provided to confirm that fact, 'improved' the article? It was somehow beneficial to remove one of the most notable things about Young? Likewise, I continue to see claims that Young is only mentioned in passing and there is no news coverage of the man himself... despite having already provided references demonstrating that this just isn't true.[70][71][72] AfD is not a vote. Arguments need to be consistent with Wikipedia policy... and reality. CBD 12:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing, "frequently cited by the news media as an authority on age verification" indeed improved the article, because none of the four sources cited for that statement refer to him as an "authority on age verification". Here's what they actually said (each bullet being the entirety of what a particular source said about Young):

"Her successor looks set to be Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, who is 115, according to Robert Young, adviser to Guinness World Records."
"In Benkner's case, the Gerontology Research Group's senior claims investigator, Robert Young, of Atlanta, verified her age from an 1889 birth certificate, 1890 baptismal certificate and 1908 marriage license, among other records ... Young, the researcher who visited Benkner at a birthday party last Sunday, said she appears robust compared to some of the other supercentenarians he's met."
"Emiliano Mercado del Toro, 115, of Puerto Rico is now expected assume the title of world's oldest person, said Robert Young, a Guinness researcher."
" 'She spent the last 20 years living with her daughter and son-in-law, and generally enjoyed good health,' Robert Young, adviser to Guinness World Records, told Associated Press. 'She was in good shape until she had a bout of pneumonia and she died unexpectedly. Her family was expecting to have a 117th birthday party,' Mr Young said ... Capovilla's likely successor as oldest woman is an American, Elizabeth Bolden of Memphis, Tennessee, said Mr Young."

As mentioned by others here, even 1000 instances of your speaking for a notable organization doesn't make you notable, nor does looking at a birth certificate someone's family sent you and doing the subtraction. As for the three links you provide at the end of your post, one is invisible behind a login and the other two are the same ones discussed here over and over: non-news human interest based almost entirely on unverifiable statements made by Young himself. EEng (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that articles use the exact same words as their sources. Even if there were, that wouldn't be justification for removing notable information from articles, only for rewording it. It is not at all inaccurate to say that 'news media cite Young as an authority on age verification'... there is overwhelming evidence to support that they do. Similarly, removal of the sentence calling him a "gerontology researcher" because those exact words weren't used (though, in fact, they were in the AJC article which is now behind a paywall [73][74]) is more than a bit ridiculous... given his work for the "Gerontology Research Group". Likewise, it doesn't matter how many times the articles about Young himself have been dismissed out of hand/based on unfounded (not to mention OR and BLP violating) assumptions that the information all came from Young himself without any verification by the news media that published them... they clearly exist, and thus claims that there is no such coverage of Young are demonstrably false. CBD 14:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but notice that there seems to be a bit of a straw-man argument in the above comment. What matters here is not whether there is any coverage at all, as the above comment seems to be making. What matters is whether the subject meets WP:GNG, regarding whether the subject has received significant coverage in press, and to quote that page, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." I have yet to see any particular sources which address this individual in detail. WP:NOPAGE also raises several significant points about whether a topic is sufficiently covered for a standalone article, and, from what I've seen, I haven't seen anything to indicate it is. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject easily meets WP:GNG. Sources have been provided numerous times. As I wrote above:

It is not credible to say that this article from the Chicago Tribune, this article from The Wall Street Journal, this article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and this article from the Los Angeles Times do not "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".

Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many times you keep re-posting these links, there is still is no "Significant coverage" of the subject as required under WP:GNG. These were rejected as not significant 8 years ago at the first AfD and is still barely mention the subject now. You need to find some new coverage that actually give "Significant coverage" and cease repeating the same mantra that, quite frankly is becoming insulting to anyone who reads them with an IQ above room temperature. - Galloglass 22:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. With about half the editors posting here feeling there is minimum GNG for Mr Young, it is you who are actually insulting a good many wikipedians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" is only part of the requirement, and I shouldn't have to remind you that the number of editors on each "side" isn't what matters. These sources have been analyzed in full earlier in this debate. Putting aside popcorn quotes from Young such as "It will be the biggest breakthrough in human history, save possibly the advent of the nuclear age" -- and being quoted isn't a basis for GNG at all -- almost everything else is unverifiable self-reported interview material of the "We were so poor ... regretted ... intrigued ... awed" type discussed earlier. Despite what you keep saying, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". There's no way for even WSJ to tell whether Young was, in fact, awed by supercentenarians when he was a teenager. EEng (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true but I was responding to Gallo's wording of "significant coverage" and his IQ remark. For that my last post was dead on. That aside, if you're quoted enough it sure as heck can make you notable. People like the Earthquake Lady have made a living out of simply giving quotes to newspapers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to know a great deal more about Journalism then if you think simply being quoted makes you notable. - Galloglass 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galloglass is correct. Kate Hutton ("the earthquake lady") is routinely quoted as an academic expert per ACADEMIC, which is quite different from issuing press releases. EEng (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is simply more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" is only part of the requirement – which other part of the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requirements are you hinting at?

Regarding WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Under your extremely restrictive interpretation of policy, most biographies would have to be severely trimmed. It would forbid the featured article Hillary Rodham Clinton#Early life from having sentences like:

Her mother wanted her to have an independent, professional career, and her father, otherwise a traditionalist, felt that his daughter's abilities and opportunities should not be limited by gender.

Who could know what her mother and father wanted? This information must be gleaned from interviews with the people involved.

That Young told The Wall Street Journal that he was awed by elderly people when he was a youth is sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is not an exceptional claim (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources), so I see no need to question it if The Wall Street Journal doesn't.

Cunard (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional provisions of GNG that apply here include:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. [footnote continues] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, [etc etc and...] minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

I don't have the sources used in the Clinton article available, but one imagines that her mother's and father's social attitudes and so on would be supported, in a serious biography, by letters, recollections by multiple persons, documented actions in their personal lives, and so on -- not just their own statements.

I think these issues have been thoroughly ventilated now, and if you wish to have the last word, be my guest. EEng (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GRG, but not until some fair-minded editor inserts a sourced sentence into the GRG article about Mr. Young's connection. Without such a sentence, the redirect would be sorta inscrutable. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done [75] -- subject of course to the approval of my esteemed fellow editors. EEng (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal. There is another article entitled "Extreme longevity tracking". If this article is not strong enough as stand-alone, then one-paragraph mini-bio could be merged into the "Extreme longevity tracking" article. It's the content, what it the most important. What matters is what effect Robert Young's career is having on the public knowledge of how long can humans live. Such addition would also make the Extreme longevity tracking article more comprehensive. Waenceslaus (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waenceslaus (talk · contribs), I think the sources about Robert Young are enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Would you review the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Los Angeles Times links I posted above and determine whether they provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Cunard (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bongal[edit]

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

This article is full of Original research and misinterpretations of sources. For instance this source says the word "Kola Bongal" was used to indicate the Bengali people living in Assam. But the article creator wrote it the article the Bengali Hindus were called 'Kola Bongal' literally meaning 'the black foreigner' which is totally misinterpretation of the source. This article is full of such types of misinterpretations. Rahat (Message) 13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to correct the (allegedly) mistaken information rather than taking this to AfD? Pax 05:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Claim of misinterpretation of reference and allegation of original research is not a valid reason for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Acoording to no 6 of WP:DEL-REASON, there is a valid reason foe deletion and also according to WP:OR, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: #6 reads, with my emphasis, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)". - In other words, in the absence of RS, those are valid criteria. But there are RS in the article. For instance, an article about a neologism or a social slur (e.g., kike, wop, etc) is acceptable if it is sourced. Pax 22:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is a notable slur. Pax 07:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Bongal is cognate with Bengal. If there is an implication in the change of vowel that makes it insulting, that needs to be explained. Otherwise this adds little to Bongal Kheda (which I am voting to keep). We certainly do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would interesting to have it explained, but it's not necessary to keep the article. (I would imagine it's a portmanteau of "Bengal" and "Mongol", alluding to the worst connotations of the latter.) Pax 09:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bongal Kheda. Dictionary definition masquerading as an article. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 17 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelópolis Mall[edit]

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

Recreation of page deleted by CSD:A7. No claim of notability and not a single reference. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for being interested in the article. I live in Puebla, Mexico and I create or edit articles that are related with the city of Puebla, the State of Puebla or even the ones that are related with Mexico. My interest is to create an article that talk about the mall called Angelópolis. Is one of the most modern in Mexico and it´s known by many people. There are other articles of Shopping Malls in Mexico that need to be deleted or edited, many of them are written in a publicity way. Please, DO NOT delete this page. It´s very important for many people the existence of this article. Many people here in Puebla read Wikipedia, needs Wikipedia, but they do not know how to write Wikipedia or they don´t care about that. I try to give information, to give references, it is very difficult to me because this article was written 2 times before me and when I entered into Wikipedia I notices that there was no information about one of the most important shopping malls here in Mexico. Would you please tell me what can I do to avoid the deletion of this article? I'll appreciate it so much. Thank you and greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso marquina (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unless something important has been added, the fact that it has been deleted twice speaks for itself. If it is deleted, is it possible to block it from being recreated for a fourth time? Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[]][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mall outcomes. Is 846,366 square feet. I don't know Spanish, so I can't tell much about what googling Centro Comercial Angelópolis returns. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:30, 10 March 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. Nakon 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett M98[edit]

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

Rifle was never placed into production and Google News and Google Archives fail to turn up significant coverage as per the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep possible merge with M99.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after performing more research, this subject does not meet notability guidelines.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, subject of this AfD has received some form of coverage in the following reliable source:Jane's International Defense Review: IDR. Jane's Information Group. 1998. p. 18. As a snippet, I cannot tell whether that coverage is significant or not. As I have not found more than this reliable source that gives coverage to the subject, I am persuaded to support deletion at this time. If more reliable sources that give significant coverage to the article can be found I can be persuaded to change my opinion. As it stands right now, one reliable source of some coverage (significant or not) does not pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- a reliable source could be used to add material in a section of either Barrett Firearms Company or List of sniper rifles articles, this article could then redirect there. AadaamS (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Very few unbuilt prototypes are notable enough for articles. It'd be best to merge any sourced material into a paragraph in the main Barrett Firearms Manufacturing article. Rezin (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little reliably sourced information on this one beyond a prototype appearing at SHOT Show one year, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A gun that didn't happen with little or no reliably sourced information. No objection to a redirect if a suitable target can be agreed on. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 17 March 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.