Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 May 11 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American ethnic and religious fraternal orders[edit]

List of American ethnic and religious fraternal orders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic. This article has serious bias issues that cannot be corrected in its current format, and I don't think we should be creating lists like this in the first place. It also has errors in information because 98% of it is sourced primarily from three out-of-date books. Here are some examples:

  1. The author placed all the Jewish fraternal orders in the "Ethnic" category. I think that's open to debate, as it is a difficult issue, especially with respect to fraternal orders, and it's not something we should be debating here on WP.
  2. There's both a "Hispanic" and "American Indian" section - we don't use those terms here. Likely the result of direct lifts from old texts, and not enough attention to fix it.
  3. Examples of categorization issues of groups - The Knights of Pythias are not African-American; this list says they are. The Association Canado-Americaine is listed as "French", but it is obviously Canadian from the name, and in fact is said to be heavily Catholic, which might make it a) French-Canadian, or b) Catholic. The characterization of this list is causing this sort of interpretive problem.
  4. The Teepee Order of America is listed as "American Indian", and then says it accepted anyone besides blacks and European immigrants, "Indian or non-Indian" (also a good example of the cut-and-paste work prevalent in the article). Also, the verbiage used, "Alleged Blackfeet Indian" is not correct.
  5. African-American fraternal orders are often heavily influenced by specific religious beliefs, but that distinction is not made here either.
  6. The author did, however, make sure to discriminate between three groups of Slavs. I am reasonably sure that was a personal distinction, as well, not present in the texts.
  7. The Ruthenian section under one of the Slav headers is basically "Greek Catholic", so those groups have the same problems here as with the Jewish ones, where ethnic and religious aren't separable.
  8. Extraneous information from sources where the author did something not germane to this article. "Attempts to contact by mail in the 1890s failed." "Attempts to contact in 1923 failed" etc.
  9. Errors: Galilean Fishermen in African-American section: "Founded in 1856 in Washington, DC by Anthony S. Perpender. One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!

The issues are pervasive and not correctable. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is my point by point response:

  1. The author placed all the Jewish fraternal orders in the "Ethnic" category. I think that's open to debate, as it is a difficult issue, especially with respect to fraternal orders, and it's not something we should be debating here on WP.

Jewish fraternal groups come in both religious and secular forms - ergo the Workmans Circle, which identifies itself as ethnically Jewish, but is a secular group as far as I am aware; see the larger discussion about Jewish ethnic and religious identity at Who is a Jew?

  1. There's both a "Hispanic" and "American Indian" section - we don't use those terms here. Likely the result of direct lifts from old texts, and not enough attention to fix it.

Actually no, I choose those names. And there is no official WP that I am aware of to use different names.

  1. Examples of categorization issues of groups - The Knights of Pythias are not African-American; this list says they are.

The Knights of Pythias link goes to an African American order of the Knights of Pythias. They were like the Prince Hall version of the K of P.

  1. The Association Canado-Americaine is listed as "French", but it is obviously Canadian from the name, and in fact is said to be heavily Catholic, which might make it a) French-Canadian, or b) Catholic. The characterization of this list is causing this sort of interpretive problem.

This is a matter of semantics. "Association Canado-Americaine" was an organization of people of French descent (mostly Canadian) that was also Catholic. Its seems kind of pointless to distinguish between French American and French Canadian American. I believe that their primary ethnic self - identity is French;

  1. The Teepee Order of America is listed as "American Indian", and then says it accepted anyone besides blacks and European immigrants, "Indian or non-Indian" (also a good example of the cut-and-paste work prevalent in the article). Also, the verbiage used, "Alleged Blackfeet Indian" is not correct.

I would refer you to the Historical dictionary of American Indian Movements, where I got this information, for the issues relating to this order.

  1. African-American fraternal orders are often heavily influenced by specific religious beliefs, but that distinction is not made here either.

The same could be said for the European immigrant groups that often overlapped with sectarian identities ergo, Irish Catholic, German Lutheran etc.

I do not know what you mean by "specific religious beliefs" - none of these African-American fraternal orders were ever tied to any specific denomination that I am aware of, other than the Catholic Knights of Peter Claver

  1. The author did, however, make sure to discriminate between three groups of Slavs. I am reasonably sure that was a personal distinction, as well, not present in the texts.

That is because there were alot of orders relating specifically to the different Slavic ethnic groups. Particularly Slovaks.

  1. The Ruthenian section under one of the Slav headers is basically "Greek Catholic", so those groups have the same problems here as with the Jewish ones, where ethnic and religious aren't separable.

"Greek Catholic" also known as Uniate Catholic or Eastern Catholic is not an ethnic but a religious term - many of the Ruthenians were also members of Uniate Churches. When they immigrated to America alot of ethnic groups were tied closely with specific religious denominations, as were their fraternal order - the Irish Catholic Knights of Equity etc - these orders were for Ruthenians (also called Rusyns, Carpatho Russians etc) who were also members of the Greek Catholic rite; See Ruthenian Catholic Church

  1. Extraneous information from sources where the author did something not germane to this article. "Attempts to contact by mail in the 1890s failed." "Attempts to contact in 1923 failed" etc.

Whats wrong with that? I went to the last time an attempt was made to contact the order, giving the reader a time frame in which it must have dissolved.

  1. Errors: Galilean Fishermen in African-American section: "Founded in 1856 in Washington, DC by Anthony S. Perpender. One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!

Yes it was one of the oldest orders of its kind - an African American fraternal order not linked to an earlier order such as freemasonry or Oddfellowship (Grand United Order of Oddfellows)

As for the sources, I'll admit Axelrod 1997 has its flaws, but Schmidt 1980 was a scholarly publication. Preuss and Stevens were the source for much of the information in both. When I could, I went to their sources. Whats the problem?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the article, period. The sources are problematic and out-of-date. The classification is problematic to the point of not working at all. Justifying why something was the way it was still does not make it correct or in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Referring me to an outside source in an AfD discussion to clarify something in the article doesn't make the article "correct", nor is it really an appropriate response - no one else reading the article is going to run to the original source either. Linking entries to the wrong pages and then making mistakes because of that is a problem - as with Freemasonry, there are two branches of Knights of Pythias, and the whole group was classified incorrectly because the article creator did no go far enough to verify the material. There's no justification there - it is absolutely incorrect. My concern is that much of the information I can verify from within the article or within WP, I have found to be wrong. What about the material I can't verify?
Also, as it is impossible that he personally was a member of all of these groups, the classification by the author (because this is essentially a one-person endeavor) of whether a group was more "ethnic" or "religious" is actually pretty arbitrary in those cases where there is overlap. Arbitrary classification of ethnic, religious, or fraternal groups is bias - end of story. The Workmen's Circle, by the way, isn't a Jewish fraternal order and never claimed to be - read the about page of one of the local ones - they specifically say religious background is irrelevant, and that they focus on social issues and cultural education. Claiming it as a "secular Jewish fraternal organization" and a reason to make the others ethnic as a result has no bearing on this article. Who is a Jew? is an article about self-identification, and isn't germane to this article either, because this isn't a self-identification problem. The Jews are only one example of the overlap problem - I've mentioned others, and have a few more below. It's very simple: if a group has a specific religious qualification, then it is religious. If it has a specific ethnic qualification, it is ethnic. If it isn't clear and can't be figured out, don't guess, because that's original research.
Now, the reason I pointed out the African-American orders as having religious components is because many of them are strongly tied to shared religion as an essential cultural component - as a result, there's less religious diversity in those groups without it being a specific religion's group. There is specific religion invoked in these groups, but it just so happens that that's culturally the way it is, so there's no overt religious qualification; it becomes such as the result of the underlying cultural assumptions. Why am I picky about French-Canadian? Because the term exists for a reason and claims its own distinct culture from the rest of Canada, as they go to great lengths to indicate. It is also a heavily Catholic group. The rest of Canada is primarily British and a mix of other religions. Again, it's an issue where religion and ethnicity may not be separable, but they've been separated here. Ancient Order of Hibernians? Listed as Irish here, but it's not; it's Irish Catholic only, so no Irish Protestants will be joining that organization.
The underlying classification scheme of this list simply doesn't work. When the distinctions in this list go away, the article becomes nothing more than a meaningless infodump from old books, and has no encyclopedic value.MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Knights of Pythias link did not go to the overall K of P article, but to the section of that article about the Afro-American version. The Workmans Circle has always been a secular Jewish ethnic fraternal order. They may now allow non-Jews to join, like the Sons of Norway allow non-Norwegians to join, but that is what it is. Read World of our Fathers by Irving Howe. The cultural education you mention is of the Yiddisheit - the Eastern European Yiddish speaking ethnic Jews. They come from a heritage of socialist thought that was popular among them in Europe in the late 19th century and was brought over to America. I do not know if they consider themselves socialists anymore, but the divide between religious apolitical and non-religious socialist Jews was very real and was a factor in the creation of the order in the first place. In any event, all of the orders listed were founded for ethnic Jews.
Now you make a point about religious and ethnic overlap- if you knew anything about the history of European immigration to the US in the nineteenth and early 20th centuries then you would realize this is a red herring - different ethnic groups tied their cultural identities closely with their denominations - Scandinavians were Lutherans, Irish Catholic etc. However there were also religious minorities in these groups and secular ones. For instance, most Lithuanians were Catholic, but there was also the Lithuanian Workers Alliance which was secular, most Slovaks were also Catholic, but there was also one for Slovak Protestants; St. Patricks alliance was open to all Irish regardless of faith, while the other two were open only to Irish Catholics. All of the ethnic orders are listed based on their ethnic identities. When an order was open to all ethnicity of a certain religion then they are under religious orders. (In any case, many of these orders that are still around are now required to admit anyone, which has alot to do with changing laws, attitudes and assimilation of European immigrant identities - however they were founded to preserve and help these specific ethnic and/or religious groups. They are an important part of American history and that is why I created the page.)
I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say about the African-American orders relation to religion - some of them had religious aspects, like how the Masons use Biblical imagery, some were led by clergy which was important structure for the Black community then (and now), but I don't think any one of them was a specifically "religious" group. As for the difference between French-Americans and French-Canadian Americans - it still just strikes me as hairspliting and semantics. Most of the French ancestoried people in the US could probably count as French-Canadian Americans - the Cajuns who trekked from Acadia to Louisiana, the French communities in Vermont and New Hampshire - there are two French American orders, do you really think we need to split that into two category headings?
I really don't get what your point is. Yeah, ethnic and religious identity often over lap, but it is clear from looking at the list that orders that serve one ethnic group are in that ethnic category regardless of religious affiliation, those that serve religious groups regardless of ethnicity are under religion. What is so difficult to understand?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is so hard to understand is that you say "orders that serve one ethnic group are in that ethnic category regardless of religious affiliation, those that serve religious groups regardless of ethnicity are under religion." and that is absolutely not the case in this article at all. Hibernians and The Order of the Teepee are clearly misplaced by your criteria for different reasons, and there are many groups that serve an ethnicity and a religion, not one or the other. However, I also see you're trying to turn this into a content dispute, and it isn't. I don't doubt that what you copied out of the books was what the books said. what I have a problem with is that you devised an arbitrarily wide division scheme to create a listdump article, and that scheme is the problem. MSJapan (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Order of the Teepee and the Ancient Order of Hibernians were created to serve the needs of specific communities. Yes, they began to allow others in, but that does not change what they were founded for. Read any history of the Workmens Circle - it was founded to help and preserve the culture of secular, socialist East European immigrants. The link that you send in fact says that it is a JEWISH CULTURAL center. By law or by custom most of these groups are open to and have to serve other communities, but that is beside the point. Like anyone can join an Asian Club at my University - its a law - but the reason the Asian Club was founded was to serve the Asian community. So whats your point? Yeah, some of these orders were related to a specific denomination and an ethnic group, but it seems rather logical to put all of the ethnic groups together, then the ones that serve entire religions. Else the list would be cluttered and less user friendly. Perhaps this is arbitrary, but I was Wikipedia:Be bold. That I have created an article where I repeat information gleaned from published sources? Well, I cannot do Wikipedia:Original research, and their websites are usually not WP:RS. Every thing is true according to the sources that I list. So times I can refer your to those sources because they are out of copyright and on the internet ergo Stevens and Preuss and Fortnightly Review. Other times I can only refer you to a published source for my information. What is that I have do wrong? If this is an "infodump" then wikipedia itself is a giant infodump.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - I share some of MSJapan's concerns. In some of the orders listed (such as Prince Hall Freemasonry), the order was founded to serve a specific ethnic group... but may have subsequently changed or expanded its focus. And the line between religiously focused orders and ethnically focused orders definitely needs better clarification. I am not sure if the list deserves to be completely deleted... but if it is to be kept, it will need an extensive re-thinking and re-working to better define its scope and inclusion criteria. For example, if the article were moved and re-worked as: American Fraternal orders founded to serve specific ethnic groups I think it might help give clarity as to what belongs on the list, and where. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we split it into two - one for ethnic, including ethno-religous, and the other for purely religious orders. There is also National Fraternal Society for the Deaf which was neither, but which was set up and modeled after the ethnic orders.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We're not here to discuss whether this or that term is preferred for this or that ethnicity, or whether there is an error here or there with the information presented, or whether it might be better to split this up into two lists instead of one — only whether this list is encyclopedic and helpful. It clearly is. Material is well documented with footnotes and this is a subject of considerable academic interest and study. The presentation of a more or less comprehensive listing is also in no way novel; see, for example: Albert C. Stevens, The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities: A Compilation of Existing Authentic Information and the Results of Original Investigation as to the Origin, Derivation, Founders, Development, Aims, Emblems, Character, and Personnel of More Than Six Hundred Secret Societies in the United States (1899) and Alvin J. Schmidt, Fraternal Organizations (1980). A very bad notability challenge, in my estimation. It should also be noted that this page provides a useful index for articles already in existence and redlinks for work needing to be done. Everything else is an editing matter: play nice. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Carrite has pointed out the nomination doesn't actually give a valid reason for deletion. As for whether there are flaws with it , well it isn't my subject area, but taking "One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!" from the nomination; If the article had said "The oldest order of its kind," then it would make sense to correct to "One of the oldest orders of its kind,". An assertion by one editor that something has errors that are uncorrectable does not mean that errors are uncorrectable by others, or indeed even errors. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is great to have as a list-article for purpose of identifying gaps (red-links) in Wikipedia coverage, besides for usual purpose of providing a comprehensive index (which Wikipedia is great for doing). I am surprised there are so many redlinks; it is random that there is Danish Brotherhood in America but not others like it. Bellerophon5685 thank you for developing it.

It's an obviously notable topic as there exist books on the topic. --doncram 17:57, 14 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of humidity on particulate matter measurement[edit]

Impact of humidity on particulate matter measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopaedic essay. Also, there are citations, but no actual references. Adam9007 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Close to a speedy G1. This reads like a low-quality machine translation of a copyvio, but I can't find the original. Regardless, it is totally unencyclopedic (I assume the word the nominator meant). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, yes I did mean unencyclopaedic. Don't know how I missed that! Adam9007 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially original research. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 15 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Doyle (inventor)[edit]

Bob Doyle (inventor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely an autobiography, lacking independent sources and making inflated and - ahem - not entirely mainstream claims. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This guy might be notable, but the article doesn't do a very good job proving it. I think instead of delete maybe tag for references. valereee (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - probably notable, but article needs improved to show it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this guy, while he has an illustrious CV, does not really meet our notability requirements. He has held some academic positions that don't seem to meet WP:PROF. He has self-published at least one book, but it hasn't received wide critical attention - Free Will[1] gets discussed on some blogs but I can't find more serious coverage. He has been awarded patents and been involved in various technological advancements, but there's nothing to say how significant his work is. The best source I could find was Harvard Magazine, which may be generally reliable but probably will tend to cheerlead for Harvard faculty.[2] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting guy, intellectual, kind of article people who read encyclopedias would like to know about. Wikipedia has articles on cricket players, train stations, comic book characters who are less interesting than Bob Doyle, but no one bothers to get rid of them. His electronic games were best sellers. Simon? have you not seen Simon? Maybe you're too young. Rest of electronics described in article. His informationphilosopher website is REPLETE with good stuff to read. So what it's not conclusive; philosophy never is. He's working at the edge of physics and philosophy where a lot of people are writing and exploring in the last several decades, about info theory and limits of physics. So what he is not accepted as correct yet, it's too early to finally evaluate this stuff, but it's the kind of stuff people want, (the kind of people who want this stuff.) In my opinion. GangofOne (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I erred, Doyle did not create Simon (game), he created Merlin (game). "best selling game" of 1980. Check that article to see if it has significance, which would reflect on Doyle, as well as the other 6 games that were put on the market by Parker Brothers. GangofOne (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, It's interesting is not considered reason for keeping a Wikipedia article. Almost anything is interesting to somebody. WP:FRINGE may also be relevant, which he appears to fail. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected calling him "interesting" might trigger WP-is-neutral,-not-interesting rule. I hoped others would get interested. Isn't this the kind of article/person an encyclopedia should be about, not accounts of sport figures/political buffoons? Maybe that's just me. GangofOne (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
article changes as we speak; be sure to look at What Links Here, to see how he's connected. I see Two-stage model of free will is also up for deletion, fyi. ‎ His main feature is not that he's FRINGE, it's that he's an academic AND he's a successful electronic game designer/inventor AND he's a philosopher. We need not evaluate the philosophy, that is too much to ask. As far as inventing the podcast , I see his article is the main reference. The inventor part not good enough in combo with the rest? I maintain my KEEP vote. GangofOne (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Sourcing indicates a lack of out-of-the-fringe notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I too could only come up with that piece in Harvard Magazine. I agree he is an interesting guy, and his ideas on free will has received some attention, but I can't see evidence of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", or any other of the specific notability criteria for academics. Vesal (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Largely because he didn't invent the podcast, but in the US-history version of the web (which is wrong, but the received wisdom on WP), he did so, along with Dave Winer. The early career in astronomy with NASA was new to me, but seems like it ought to pass the notability bar in itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the content will need to be removed. Doyle isn't notable as a philosopher or as an academic but I think the game design work, for example, makes him notable. Roches (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You think? What about providing some actual evidence? If he played an important role in podcasting or gaming, why isn't he profiled more extensively? There is currently almost zero independent sources about him. That doesn't bother any of you? All we can do is copy his own web page. What's the point in doing that? Vesal (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to listen to Winer / Doyle / Winer / Curry / Winer being listed as "the inventors of podcasting" for 15 years now. Tonight I'm off to a Labs reunion with some of the people who did it a few years earlier. I suspect Microsoft had done it two years before that with CDF. Except we don't even exist because a "Wikipedian in Residence" wrote us (and a $2M project) out of history. History, especially on WP, is controlled by the victors. Doyle was part of the group that became the official WP history of the web. To be fair, I think they probably did invent it independently in RSS 2.0 (just not first) and Doyle deserves some credit for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any independent reliable sources to back this up? Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Article is weak but seems to be enough to build on and has room to grow. I say keep right now and review later. Ozzyland (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any room to build on here Peter Damian (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the references around have copied each other. VandVictory (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very poor references, and only the Harvard Magazine one that could be considered a RS. The article has been around since 2008 and the presumed notability reaches back to the 1960's, so I don't think that there is anything to wait for. LaMona (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His standing in science is low. Yes he did get a PhD in 1969 then work for NASA for a couple of years until 1972, but that is pretty un-exceptional. As far as I'm aware, he has not been involved in academia since then and has no current position at Harvard. While he self-publishes his ideas about philosophy, he seems to have no standing among academic philosophers. A lot of the claims on his websites about his status in science and philosophy are highly dubious. (I'm not commenting on his career in IT/gaming and patents since that's not something I know about.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.6.175 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
consider Merlin (game). Take look at all aspects GangofOne (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably notable enough with some of his inventions. Maduwanwela (talk) 14:41, 20 May 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. (WP:SNOW). North America1000 23:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Anderson (soccer)[edit]

Ian Anderson (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soccer player but fails WP:NSOCCER , having neither played in an International nor played in a fully professional league.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per nominator, fails WP:NSOCCER, no play as professional or international. Tapered (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 12 May 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance (2023 Film)[edit]

Endurance (2023 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2023 Film? No evidence filming has started, appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a hoax by "Newryst Studios", for which I can find nothing and which itself was speedily deleted. It started filming now and is expected to be released in 2023? That would take superhuman endurance. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete What film financier is insane enough to allow a film to take eight years to complete?! Also, film synopsis sounds like it describes a video game in the Gamestop bargain bin. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Studio":(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Founder:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Founder":(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Planned:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. As this is the third time this has been deleted I am also WP:SALTing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Phillips[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jon Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable per WP:BIO. Not seeing the kind of media coverage we look for when determining notability. Also it's been deleted twice before. Only not a speedy because those deletes were a long time ago. Agtx (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First 3 refs are defunct links. Other refs don't corroborate the main claims to notability in the article. Ergo fails WP:N.
  • Keep, is part of Free Culture and Freebassel campaign. Chengsi258 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked at the Independent sources, add CNN, and some industry specific independent reviews, Artslant, etc. Chengsi258 (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jon Phillips is notable in the Free Software/Free Culture arena. As Free Culture is in competition with MainStream Media, it is not surprising there is little media coverage. --Bob (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear any of the current refs provide WP:INDEPENDENT and significant coverage of Jon Phillips as required to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Being part of "Free Culture" and the non-notable Freebassel campaign means nothing for his notability. A creator of Inkscape doesn't make someone a notable figure in Free Software, and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about mainstream media refusing to cover someone based on their opinions don't provide Jon Phillips with notability either. He does not inherit notability from Inkscape. To those arguing keep, by all means provide a source that meets WP:GNG requirements and any of the WP:BIO criteria, and I'll be happy to change my vote. ― Padenton|✉   18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is very little in the references that support notability. I only see one actual article about him: #3 the interview [3], and I have no idea of this article can be considered a RS. The links to conference announcements are not substantial, mentions are not substantial, and videos of Phillips speaking, etc. are not third-party sources. LaMona (talk) 05:09, 17 May 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. North America1000 00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Remmers[edit]

Jessica Remmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial independent support. reddogsix (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 00:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to suggest she's notable at all and her roles aren't exactly the best with the longest being a 6-episode show Vanya. Of course, multiple searches instantly found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whilst several sources point to an entirely different, yet similarly named individual, others mentioning her aren't reliable and the vast majority is nothing more than DVD download/rip sites; otherwise, the movies in which she had roles in aren't notable either - fails WP:ACTORBIO. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 07:50, 11 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1666 van Gent[edit]

1666 van Gent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: sources are insufficient to build a decent article about this object. It doesn't satisfy WP notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:41, 17 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1838 Ursa[edit]

1838 Ursa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Part of one group lightcurve study [4] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP; concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:51, 17 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Gestapo[edit]

Anal Gestapo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a cover band which does not satisfy WP:GNG with lack of coverage by third party reliable sources. Since they are a tribute/cover band they lack any songs of their own and make it difficult for them to meet any criteria of WP:Band except for the ones already covered in WP:GNG. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Serbia, music press does not exists, so I can not present this kind of evidence of importance to Wikipedia. However, check Youtube and their videos, and number of people at concerts. Last, Wikipedia has number of tribute band articles, and I see no reason not to include this one.Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online articles about Anal Gestapo
http://ck13.org/141
http://www.komandantadam.com/2006.htm
http://blog.dnevnik.hr/muskat/2007/12/1623772968/live-report-ili-kako-sam-doiveo-i-preiveo-koncert.html

Rockunion (talk)

  • No view on notability, but this group sounds like a bunch of Nazi assholes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy f%ck that was an unpleasant google search. I'm stll not sure if they're nazi assholes or flamboyant trolls. Not sure I want to know. Earflaps (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both "nazi assholes" and "flamboyant trolls" sound very pejorative and offensive. Is it expected to tolerate this language on Wikipedia? Rockunion (talk)
Neither nazi or asshole is a curse word, and I fail to see how 'flamboyant troll' is in any way pejorative (frequently being one myself, though I keep my trolling off wiki). But even if they are an All Leather type snark/shock band, doesn't change the fact that they have basically no coverage in english. Earflaps (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turbonegro, Turbojugend, Anal Gestapo, and everything associated with Turbonegro is *very anti-fascist oriented*. Check Turbonegro for more info. Do not make wrong conclusions before digging more deep. Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • btw, noticed now you contributed heavily to teh article - however the discussion goes, you want want to make sure your research doesn't go to waste by transferring some of it to Turbonegro, if you built a 'cover bands' or 'legacy' section lower on the page (example) Earflaps (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is already a link at Turbonegro page to Anal Gestapo page. But I do not think we should be putting more information there. Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Delete as well, for the same reasons that McMatter gave. Three web-pages in Serbian are hardly enough for “coverage by reliable third party sources” (two of them look like they are simply billing calendars). And explaining a lack of sources by saying there is no music press in Serbia (ie there's no-one interested enough to write that kind of stuff, or else there's no-one interested enough to read it) is a circular sort of argument.
Also, this is (it would appear) a Serbian tribute band covering stuff by a Norwegian outfit; why then is the article on the English WP? The logical place would be the Serbian, or maybe the Norwegian, WP. And there is a music press in the English-speaking world; if this lot had any notability for an English-speaking readership then there would be some coverage, somewhere.
I would suggest, regardless of how this AfD goes, it would make more sense re-writing it in Serbian (or Norwegian, or both) and posting it on the relevant WP. Swanny18 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is in English, so it can be read by other Turbojugend members who mostly communicate in English. Not many understand Serbian nor Norwegian, and having an article in English seems adequate.
I am not trying to prove this entry is crucial for Wikipedia or the World in general, how could I? But it will matter to Turbojugend members or people interested in this kind of music. This could be a minority in the World, but if minorities should not be represented in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should only write about Justin Bieber.
I am not an advocate, the links I provided above were first few links that came out in my search. Rockunion (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 14 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1663 van den Bos[edit]

1663 van den Bos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The subject of a single-object study [5] and a group study [6], and mentioned in several other studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upgrading from weak keep to keep because of the unusually long period. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. In fact maybe 50 of these discussions have already reached consensus and been closed (look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science). It is not premature to continue nominating more of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: Boleyn has about 255 AfDs for low numbered asteroids. All he cares about is CAT:NN and AfD is not cleanup. Deleting too many borderline asteroids is harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's previously been agreed (and the results of the already-closed recent AfDs confirm) that most asteroids are not notable, even in this range of numbers, and that the non-notable ones should be redirected. It's also been previously agreed that mass AfDs or bold redirection won't work; we have to take each one to an individual AfD. Now you seem to be arguing that individual AfDs are also not ok. Frankly, this looks to me as some sort of an attempt at filibustering the process and blocking the consensus that has developed among other editors, to force your minority preference for keeping all of these over the consensus that had previously developed. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although AfD is not Articles for discussion; as per above, bold redirection won't work, as there may be notability. Redirect proposals or talk page consensus take a long time to gain consensus, even if a RfC is opened. So AfD is probably the only plausible venue, and for good cause. See WP:ADHOM (this is not an rebuttal on the actual nomination) and Assume good faith. Esquivalience t 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It has a notably long rotation period of 740 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Also apparently there was a minor discrepancy on the brightness prediction. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In fact, it has the 14th longest rotation period of any known solar system object, and may be as high as 9th on the list due to error in the rotation period lengths of the others. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:29, 12 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1781 Van Biesbroeck[edit]

1781 Van Biesbroeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: I couldn't locate suitable references; there are a few mentions, but nothing substantial. Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   21:48, 17 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1945 Wesselink[edit]

1945 Wesselink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient reliable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   21:56, 17 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Wempe[edit]

1950 Wempe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources available; just one photometry study. Praemonitus (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Part of one 14-object study [7] and other than that only brief mentions found. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   21:58, 17 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America1000 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1352 Wawel[edit]

1352 Wawel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. In fact maybe 50 of these discussions have already reached consensus and been closed (look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science). It is not premature to continue nominating more of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Notability is in question for all of these, and consensus on deletion is not required before taking it to AfD. There is no deletion spree, there is AfD spree, where consensus has certainly been allowed to develop. ― Padenton|✉   20:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: only one photometry study found; there's insufficient references to build a decent article. Praemonitus (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Part of one group lightcurve study [8] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉   20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although HP can be an RS, there is consensus here that even counting that there is not enough significant coverage to meet WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Knight[edit]

Zack Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced biography of a living person. No indication of notability; Google News show just enough coverage to verify that he exists, but no detailed reports about him or his work. I could find no evidence that he created "a huge buzz in mainstream / Asian media" as the article alleges. Huon (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Best I could find was this blog and dozens of trivial mentions such as this. For what it's worth (little), he has a music video with 2.5 million views. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being in the UK, I'm having a surprisingly difficult time finding news published about this bloke (under both birth and stage name), and mostly finding info about a tennis player in the USA. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, too, was only able to find the HuffPost article, and I assume HP isn't generally considered a RS. Hopefully, he'll gain more attention and will be added when there are sources to be referenced. LaMona (talk) 05:17, 17 May 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. North America1000 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jiggins[edit]

Lauren Jiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Related to Lydia Marley-Lawson and similarly non-notable. No secondary source coverage. Agtx (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:27, 11 May 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. North America1000 00:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Marley-Lawson[edit]

Lydia Marley-Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN person per WP:BIO. No secondary source coverage. Agtx (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   21:28, 11 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion relative to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. North America1000 00:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 London general election protest[edit]

2015 London general election protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ONEEVENT, no "demonstrable long-term impact", no reason to keep. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I meant to use the policy WP:NOTNEWS, which firmly applies here. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT is not (despite its name) a policy regarding events, it is a policy regarding people. Policies which do actually relate to the notability of events which could be applied in this case as WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Furthermore although technically not a crime elements of the protest reached a stage where WP:N/CA could also be applied. This article should also be kept per WP:RAPID. Ebonelm (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apologies for that. I had not included it in my initial talk page comment as I knew that, but I appear to have forgotten. Comment struck. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see how this is notable. WP:NOTNEWS is probably the most relevant thing here. Number 57 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Notability (events), particularly WP:LASTING. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable nor newsworthy. A small and frankly predictable "protest" by a bunch of criminal-minded thugs. If it were considerably more substantial or in any way significant, it might warrant an article, but really an event like this needs to cross quite a high threshold to have an entire Wikipedia article of its own. Mind, if it were kept it should expound the disgusting vandalism to the war memorial as well as the unwarranted attacks on the police. I love the comment above by the only supporter of this article, "...technically not a crime..." - I think you'll find the protestors were committing a ton of crimes, hence why many were arrested. Don't make this a typical "drown out the delete request with technicalities" Wikipeida bun fight: it's obvious it should go. Let it go. Argovian (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your analyses neutral and avoid using this space as a forum. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the published photos of the protest show rows of gleefully happy police with their batons raised. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable protest. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another one of those small and unsuccessful protests blown up on social networks with "nobody is covering this, CENSORSHIP!". And before you ask, yes, right-wing groups make the same silly arguments too. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the initial rationale for the nomination was a misreading of the Guardian source, which said only 100 involved. Others claim 1000+ involved. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Absolutely not in breach of WP:NOTNEWS. 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events'. This article is not written as a news report or in a journalistic style. This article also meets WP:EVENTCRIT - 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analysed afterwards (as described below).' AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Argovian said it best. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. As of right now, not notable enough. If it garners news coverage more internationally and survives the next week, I'd be more inclined to say keep. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good point, it has already had significant international attention, so quite a lot of sources exist alreadyAusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add them to the article to demonstrate its notability? I only saw The Guardian and BBC cited. Both good sources, but coverage is local. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have now added international sources. Not all reliable sources, but establish notability (Euronews, ABC Australia, RT, Irish Independent and XinhuaAusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable event. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rational of my WP:PROD and LadyLeitmotif who raised a good point, 100 hooligans vandalising a cenotaph or memorial is not a full scale riot or long term protest. Had some cheeky begger not removed my PROD we would not be debating this.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, User:Lerdthenerd, why are you relying on 'LadyLeitmotif' as a more reliable source than the Guardian article? AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, it's a good source but the coverage is too small, should this story gain more notice then it can have an article. My point wasn't the source but the facts, 100/1000 rioters vandalising a memorial is not news worthy.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Large number of UK and global media sources. Clearly meets WP:GNG. I feel many editors are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS, which states'For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.' This is nothing of the sort, and was a noteworthy protest. WP:NOTNEWS makes absolutely crystal clear: 'As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events' AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder:, you don't get to !vote twice. The NOTNEWS sentence you quote refers to "significant current events", and what people are saying is that this was not significant. Also, read the whole of WP:GNG: the last bullet point says:

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

In other words, just being in all the papers is not necessarily enough. This is that "more in-depth discussion". JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about 'keep vote' twice. What criteria is used to classify 'significant'? I don't believe this article fails WP:NOTNEWS because an example given is 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia' - this clearly is on a different level. AusLondonder (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For "significant", WP:Notability (events) uses terms like "enduring historical significance" and "noted and sourced permanent effect"; but it's really a judgment call, and that's the question people here are giving (fairly unanimous) opinions on. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2015 election article - this has good info, the protest was well covered, and five police were injured. It doesn't meet the criteria though for its own article based on WP:EVENT (as I don't see any follow-up coverage or analysis - this is what we mean about depth of coverage). I think it should be appended to United Kingdom general election, 2015. If it pops back up in the news for some reason (they try to make a law you can't be on Downing Street for 24 hours after the election because of it, the 17 people arrested are charged with terrorism, etc etc) it can be recreated. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. (United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Protests.) Fails notability per WP:EVENT (no "enduring historical significance"; "national coverage" very small compared to election/formation of government or some other protests; it's received some "international coverage" as part of coverage of the election but not huge international coverage on the level of e.g. Ferguson protests; not "very widely covered in diverse sources"; no "lasting effect" or long duration of coverage). WP:EVENT overrides WP:GNG by specifying how events which receive coverage in multiple sources could still be non-notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Alternatives_to_deletion suggests merging. The article is short and could easily be merged. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and failing WP:NEVENT criteria: routine news, no lasting effect, no persistence of coverage. Merge is inappropriate because there is no evidence this is even a significant protest and would therefore be deserving of even a short mention in the election article. The UK has 64.5 million people, nearly 8,500,000 of which live in the city limits of London. There are over 5,300 people per square kilometer in London, and the largest estimate from an independent source for the size of this protest is "a couple of hundred people" by a Reuters photographer and 200 people by TheGuardian for the results of a national election? ― Padenton|✉   20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Padenton has summed it up well it is clearly not worthy of a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEACH VOLLEYBALL LEVAN AKHVLEDIANI[edit]

BEACH VOLLEYBALL LEVAN AKHVLEDIANI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this article doesn't meet the qualification for a speedy, I don't believe that this volleyball coach is notable per WP:BIO. Agtx (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Looks good to me on rewrite. Agtx (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but TNT. His name in Georgian + volleyball brings up numerous hits where he is the subject of the article. Meets criteria as a sport referee/president of national governing body and member of commissions for the International Volleyball Federation or whatever it's called in English. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article renamed - now at Levan Akhvlediani. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the article entirely. Could use some more info like his hometown, and I think he got some award after Beijing, but I can't connect to the Georgian Parliament website. Anyway @Agtx: it seems like it should pass guidelines now, can you take a look at it and consider delisting? Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:25, 11 May 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) 19:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia 2015[edit]

Macedonia 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads more like an essay/blog post, and original research - no encyclopedic value. No citations whatsoever. Cahk (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Runs afoul of WP:NOTESSAY (especially the original version) and WP:NOTNEWS, and the title isn't something anyone would search for. If there's recent social unrest in that country that meets notability guidelines, there is nothing here whose preservation would benefit the hypothetical article on it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly an essay and not an encyclopedic article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources in article, little reason any will be found. AlbinoFerret 02:55, 13 May 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. clearly snowing... And salting... Which tends to leave a soggy mush in the real world. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad (5th nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "topic" is inherently a polemic coatrack, a highly politicized neologism emanating from the right wing Front Page Magazine. It is not a scholarly formulation of the very real topic of use of rape as a political weapon, it is a made up term of demonization with which to tar enemies in an ongoing ideological war. This "topic" has been brought to debate at AfD three times previously, ending in resounding deletion (2013), deletion of a recreation (2015), and a no consensus decision (a bad close, 2015), followed by a 7-hour long non-administrative speedy close on procedural grounds (2015). Given the way that this POV zombie keeps coming back from the grave, in addition to deletion I am asking that this topic be salted to prevent facile recreation by a disgruntled editor. Plain and simple, this is a copiously footnoted political attack piece about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Last modified: Carrite (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: So I, the article's re-creator, am "facile", is that it? Way to be uncivil right out of the gate. And being "a member of WikiProject Socialism" and emblazoning your user page with a Soviet/communist propaganda poster does not inspire confidence in your ability to stay neutral in this or any other tangentially political subject. Pax 19:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Раціональне анархіст: Nominator said nothing of the sort, unless you've already decided to recreate if this afd is closed as delete. Also, your personal attack on Carrite based on the contents of his user page, especially when no one here is likely to see the relevance to the topic at hand is absurd and uncalled for. Go calm down. ― Padenton|✉   19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your counter-argument appears to be (condensed version): "They're not calling you 'facile' now; they're simply speculating you might be 'facile' in the future!". Well that's just a lovely assumption. Otherwise, noting the plausibility of impartiality is not a personal-attack. Pax 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Раціональне анархіст: No, again, the nominator said " in addition to deletion I am asking that this topic be salted to prevent facile recreation by a disgruntled editor." There is no speculation there that you would. Take a chill pill. ― Padenton|✉   20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fac·ile 'fasəl 2. (of success, especially in sports) easily achieved; effortless. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disgraceful attack by User:Раціональне анархіст. The proponent of deletion is a member of wikiproject conservatism, which I notice you forgot to note when bring up the communism project. What that has to do with anything, other than another personal attack is unclear. AusLondonder (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia's scholarly treatment of the topic seems to be at Wartime sexual violence. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt/RedirectMerge to Wartime sexual violence. Poorly used neologism, and Wikipedia is not for neologisms. Coined by director of "Jihad Watch" who used it in an opinion column, that's not notability. Not seeing any secondary sources meeting reliability standards. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, there's nothing to merge, all content that should be properly included has been included in vastly better articles. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Edited. ― Padenton|✉   19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The UK grooming scandals did not occur during a war.
2. The article must be kept if it is to be merged.
3. "Islamophobia" is an inherently polemical neologistic "political attack piece", and yet it has an article because sufficient RS are using the term. Pax 19:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Раціональне анархіст:
  1. Doesn't matter. There's no rationale I can see to include it in this article to begin with.
  2. I redacted merge from my statement long before you made your first comment on this afd.
  3. I never said anything about "islamophobia". Show me where I have. ― Padenton|✉   20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply you did; I was merely making an analogy. There are sufficient RS using the term "Rape jihad", as there are "Islamophobia". Pax 20:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the page's history, I no longer think a redir will prevent us from being back here in another month, so just delete and salt. ― Padenton|✉   03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Non-notable neologism that's only used within the Islamophobic echo chamber. I quickly checked a few of the pages's sources at random: sources which use the phrase (e.g. Gatestone Institute) are unreliable; and those which are reliable (e.g. BBC) do not use the phrase. Daveosaurus (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that anyone who uses the term Rape jihad is an Islamophobe? You'd better tone down the personal attacks. And there is no consensus that Gatestone is unreliable. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Aquillion and Bosstopher have done good work in getting the article to conform to policy, but their efforts only make it clearer that the article is without virtue. At this point it's obvious that the article is nothing but "here's what a handful of right-wing commentators have referred to as Rape Jihad". A WP:COATRACK that runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. There are articles that can handle the crimes of IS and Boko Haram, and Rotherham has its own article. This one has no need to exist. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: RatatoskJones has a history of section-blanking the article and been a topic-ban proposal subject in two unresolved ANIs regarding it. He has also repeatedly relayed the logically fallacious argument that a specific term is not "in" a source article if it is only (prominently) in the title of the sourced article; an argument which saw one of their "team" of edit-warriors (FreeatlastChitchat, who sadly won't be joining the !vote-stacking today) blocked for misleading edit summaries when he tried it that way, and review-declined. Pax 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (pile on) Delete and salt as well, per my comments: 1 2. In short, it fails WP:NEO (again and again and again for the kryptonitillionth time). Most of the sources do not discuss the term at all, those who do are not reliable. The article as it currently stand is much less worse thanks to the recent uninvolved editors who did a good work, but nevertheless, the bottom line is, it flatly fails WP:GNG. It is a poor attempt to tie unrelated incidents which no reliable scholarly source has done. This article is well uhm... Ahh! my throat is dry, I need some water. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Obvious attempts at censorship are obvious. This is the second of two spurious AfDs within a month. The article has been under constant assault by a small meat-puppet army (some of whom have been or currently are blocked within the last month) who use hypocritical arguments (e.g., the neologism argument, frequently while deploying "Islamophobic" in the very same breath). If the article looks ugly at any given second, it's because they made it that way hoping to get it deleted. This is my last edit version of the article, and as you can see it is neutrally-worded with no quotations or relayed condensed statements from any sources except ISIS and Boko Haram. Pax 20:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meat-puppet is a serious accusation to make and you have provided 0 evidence to support your claim. A single editor being blocked in the page's history does not equal "some", nor an "army". And neutral tone isn't the only requirement in WP:NPOV. This article (including your preferred version of it) include far too much WP:SYNTH and this is a reeking WP:EXAMPLEFARM. ― Padenton|✉   20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Here you go. (And I didn't make that one.) Pax 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to agree with Padenton here, Pax -- I've been involved with the discussion since following a random RfC bot notice on another user's talk page and I haven't seen any indication of meat or sockpuppetry in the present discussions (and the ANI you linked didn't come to any conclusions of meat puppetry in the previous ones) -- most all of the involved editors seem to be known, experienced contributors who have come to the talk page through similar bot postings and several notices I've seen posted at various central community discussion spaces, attempting to draw attention to the matter (and this approach to getting further community insight on contentious issues is both well-advised and allowed under WP:CANVAS). The large amount of attention and talk page comments the article has attracted is probably a result of this completely acceptable and good-faith outreach. Furthermore, the previous AfD ended in a no consensus, so if some editors remained concerned that there were serious policy violations implicit in the continued existence and state of this article, it is permissible for them to start another one, especially if additional support from new voices on the talk page continue to argue strongly for a delete -- and looking at the several sizable discussions on that page, there is fairly landslide support for a delete or merger. Characterizing all of those comments as attempts at censorship which utilize bad-faith methods seems incredibly inaccurate in this instance. Snow let's rap 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the numerous issues with regard to WP:V/WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:POVFORK, WP:NEOLOGISM, and so forth; I advise respondents here to check out the talk page discussions for salient details. I think there remains some potential for a merge of some of the content into the articles Wartime sexual violence, Sexual slavery, and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism (to whatever limited extent the material which is properly sourced is not already located in those articles). I also feel that a general article on the topic of sexual terrorism (a more neutral and less inflammatory/coatrackish title for a topic whose notability and verifiability under available sourcing is undeniable) could be of immense value to the project's coverage of sexual violence. I would not only support such a move as a reasonable middle-ground approach, I'd volunteer as much time as necessary to helping get it off the ground, as its an important and broad topic upon which we have very little coverage at present. But I suspect that the acrimony attached to this article may preclude that route in the short term, as some may see it as an end-run around the delete that is likely to occur -- and the "salt" comments above tend to support this supposition, with everyone clearly tired of wrestling this neologism down. So while I think some sort of neutrally-approached article on the broader topic of rape utilized as a means of social control is not only well-advised but probably inevitable, at the moment my support goes to deleting this present article outright, as a non-neutral, inadequately sourced, and otherwise problematic mess. Snow let's rap 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge very selectively to forced conversion, wartime sexual violence, Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, and/or sexual slavery. Even if the term did get sufficient mainstream coverage, there's just not enough distinction from these other topics. There may be room to include a brief mention at one or more articles, and if it's predominantly used by particular groups, we can say as much. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt This article is nothing but a POV BATTLEGROUND - other articles like wartime sexual violence and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism have better content that has NPOV language fleshed out with academic SECONDARY sources and actually works towards a useful goal of encyclopaedic content. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is a huge pile of original research propping up a neologism. This is the basic pattern: some article somewhere uses the term "rape jihad" to describe a case of an Islamist organisation or a group of Muslims sexually abusing people. This is used as an excuse to stick in a paragraph of text about that sexual abuse, usually copied from some other article about it and citing references which don't talk about "rape jihad" at all (in the case of the Darfur section the copyist hasn't even bothered to copy across the citations referred to in the footnotes). This is all linked up to conclude that these are all instances of some wider phenomenon called "rape jihad". Very few of the sources cited draw that conclusion, and the ones that do are of very low quality (the main ones are this which is a very unreliable source, and this, an opinion piece). Since the last AfD two paragraphs about the general history of rape in warfare have also been shoved in, despite the fact that the sources don't seem to talk about "rape jihad" at all. I advise against a merge as there is very, very little content that could be used and isn't already present somewhere else and given the history of recreations salting may be a good idea. Hut 8.5 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvageable mess of WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK where the use of sources that do not discuss "rape jihad" is routine. Huon (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The only reason these editors have for deleting the article is because they evidently don't like it. This phenomenon has been going on for a while, and it has been described in many, many, many, reliable sources, and the term "rape jihad" has been specifically used. There is no reason to delete this page. The term has been used by many prominent writers across the world, and there were widely publicized incidents of it. Also, I think we should keep in mind the person who nominated this for deletion is a communist, look at his user page. His objectivity on this is dubious at best. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Skip the personal attacks please. If you do actually want this page to be kept then labeling people as "obstructionist", "biased", "rabidly pro-Muslim" and "communist" really does not help your case. (Incidentally expressing an interest in the academic study of communism does not make you a communist, nor does communism imply support for militant Islam.) Hut 8.5 21:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nom's political leanings are not in any way relevant to this discussion (and are not in any event explicitly disclosed on their user page). Please confine your comments to valid policy arguments, and leave assessments of the personal qualities of the involved editors out of the matter -- argue the point, not the qualities of the participants. Frankly your comments are so over-the-top and unacceptably antagonistic, that (combined with the fact that your account is two days old), I find myself wondering if this a plant and an attempt to discredit the "keep" votes by making them look unnecessarily combative; the tone and content of your arguments are working that strongly against the outcome which you nominally are supporting. Regardless, please be aware that persisting in non-germane personal attacks may lead to a block on your ability to edit. Snow let's rap 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you have made inflammatory comments which others have objected to, it is considered appropriate to strike those comments rather deleting/altering them as you did after other editors have already replied; altering your comments changes the way in which the replying editors' comments will be perceived and can be used to game the discussion. Snow let's rap 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per WP:COATRACK and WP:NEOLOGISM. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite very good efforts this remains an unsalvageable coatrack. Maybe leave a redirect, but I'd be fine with salting too. AniMate 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Coatrack and inflammatory. GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt; I can't believe this is up for the fifth time. Any encyclopedic information should be included in Wartime sexual violence. Miniapolis 23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Unsalvageable coatrack about a seldom-used neologism. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The phrase itself seems refer to a fringe theory, primarily expressed by a small number of commentators on FrontPage Mag (such as Robert Spencer and Andrew C. McCarthy) which has spread to a few places of similar ideological bent; I don't feel that the term or theory are noteworthy enough (or having enough verifiable high-quality sources explicitly covering it) to support an article. Beyond that the article itself seems to have devolved into a WP:COATRACK for editors to gather WP:OR in support of that theory. Collecting every event they can find related to Islam and sex abuse and lumping them together under the title used for the pet theories of a few talking heads is WP:OR in that they're using article space to advance those theories. Any article on Rape Jihad (under such a controversial name, and therefore implicitly advancing Spencer's controversial theories and interpretations) would need high-quality, reputable independent sources discussing Spencer et all's theories specifically. Those don't seem to exist, so if you strip away the original research and synthesis, there's not enough left to support an article -- just a few references to places like FrontPage Magazine, the Gatestone Institute, and the English Defence League using the term or advancing the theory (but never in any really coherent depth.) Salting seems necessary given the article's repeated recreation. As my attempts to salvage it show, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of having an article that covers the sorts of anti-Islamic theories advanced by some of these sources (although I'm not sure these specific ones are noteworthy or widespread enough to cover), but it would need to be under another name and would need to be centered around reputable independent sources discussing and critiquing the theories directly rather than on the primary sources that created and advance them, which would mean a new article made from scratch. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It shames us that we give credibility to English Defence League conspiacy theories and list the Rotherham scandal as evidence of rape jihad - it was absolutely nothing of the sort. This article is a breach of WP:NPOV, the sources are incredibly poor and biased and do not meet WP:RS. The inclusion of the Rotherham and other British scandals as evidence of jihad is beyond satire. Does every Muslim that commits a crime do so in the name of Islamist jihad? Does every Christian who commits a crime do so in the name of fundamentalism or terrorism? The editing here has not been WP:NPOV and decisively WP:BATTLEGROUND. The article is an example of WP:FRINGE. Overwhelming consensus has always been to delete. Let's get it done with. AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closing admin may want to remember to salt both the titles, with upper and lower case J. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 03:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term/theory mainly expressed by commentators on a right wing magazine has then gone on to spread to those of similar views. Most of the other sources don't discuss the term at all and those that do are unreliable meaning the topic isn't noteworthy enough or has enough significant coverage from independent verifiable sources to support an article. Any encyclopaedic information within the article should be included in Wartime sexual violence and/or Slavery in 21st-century Islamism.
The article has recently been improved in line with policy guidelines by uninvolved editors, however, this has just proven that the topic clearly fails WP:GNG. Two previous AfD has ended in delete, so why are we still having this same discussion again?
Also worth noting that the two editors with the only two keeps make irrelevant comments about the nominator's talk page containing a communist userbox which has absolutely no bearing on the spirit nomination itself, given the clear valid reason given for it. These personal attacks add nothing to the case of keeping the article other than suggesting that those editors themselves hold biased views as well have weak argument on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*Delete and salt - While WP is not censored, this article is inflammatory and I agree with Tanbircdq that it is full of WP:OR and is a WP:COATRACK and a magnet for editors who are Islamophobic. Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 11 May 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) 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akmal Eyzad[edit]

Akmal Eyzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer with questionable notability and looks like a coi as well. Wgolf (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. All search results appear to be user profiles and other self-published stuff. ― Padenton|✉   18:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Also, this page may benefit from WP:SKYBLUELOCK as it's been recreated multiple times. --Non-Dropframe talk 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find reliable sources on a search for them in Google. Also, "External links" section violates WP:FACEBOOK and WP:TWITTER (will fix that meanwhile). --TL22 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Salt as created multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on search, not notable. AlbinoFerret 02:56, 13 May 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) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three legged chair or table[edit]

Three legged chair or table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced essay that even gets the reason why a three-legged table does not rock wrong. I can't see this as a notable topic, just a lame dictdef. TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, time for it to go. AlbinoFerret 02:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete

Its not possible to cite sources for this but it is an obvious fact that 4 legged tables are not stable wherease three legged are. this is a matter of observation. Its amazing that the people who want this deleted do not get the point ie that the majority of furniture designers are unaware of this simple fact which casues irriation to so many cafe users. Why not have an article adressing it. I can provide a mathemiaticl proof of why a 3 legged table is stable if you thinkk that is worth it.

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.

"Unsourced essay that even gets the reason why a three-legged table does not rock wrong. I can't see this as a notable topic, just a lame dictdef"

The above indicate that the matter is a subject of some misunderstanding - I who wrote the article and have some interest in the subject apparently do not understand it whereas the pro deleter does - why not edit the article and put the correct reason in?Engineman (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear now, with only the nominator still supporting deletion Davewild (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Herath[edit]

Charitha Herath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. The individual, Charitha Herath, was a minor government official and a non-notable academic. Essentially this article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because a person exists does not necessarily make them notable. Essentially the individual should meet WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, in this case we have a minor bureaucrat/minor academic that does not appear to have achieved anything significant or notable. None of the references cited by User:Wikicology seem to establish anything otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot be serious! Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia often keep articles on the basis of notability and not achievement. Subject of an article need not meet every criteria. These one clearly meet WP:GNG and the sources provided is not only an evidence of existence but notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology if you consider that your references establish the subject's notability then why haven't you included then in the article to demonstrate how. Dan arndt (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources exist as references for multiple reasons and they are primarily used to validate claims on Wikipedia. I really don't have the time to expand the article so why the need to add citations? For example, if am interested in written on his criticism, I may find Global tamil News helpful and therefore add it to the article. That's how things work here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so whilst you consider the individual is notable you don't believe that the article should include those referenced sources that you believe establish its notability. The references in the article clearly do not establish notability merely that he is a minor bureaucrat for a junior government agency and a non-notable academic. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:18, 15 May 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, Davewild (talk) 15:32, 17 May 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. Speedy deleted as A11/A7/A1 Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kzisesta[edit]

Kzisesta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, unable to establish notability, contested prod and re-created speedy deletion. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and SALT. Based on description it is unlikely this will ever be notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Bray[edit]

Chrissy Bray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable entertainer. Quis separabit? 12:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources to be found anywhere —МандичкаYO 😜 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can't believe such a poor article has survived 9 years. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Yikes, I didn't even notice that. And it was tagged multiple times as being purely promotional, etc. Nobody followed up. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Does not appear to have sufficient notable activity to warrant an article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally the article may have Conflict of Interest issues: page creator and major early contributor was also member of subject's website maintainers / uploaders of images. See here. You may have to read the wikicode there for his hidden message.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim to notability and fails WP:GNGDoctorhawkes (talk) 07:23, 16 May 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. Davewild (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brough[edit]

Rob Brough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable television presenter. Quis separabit? 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep host of nationally broadcast gameshow plus long time news presenter. His national profile whilst host of Feud was 1988-95, so not surprising not much is on google. The-Pope (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per the pope. He was host of a long time national tv show. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm normally inclined to vote delete for low-profile TV "stars", but he really did have a large profile and good coverage in the pre-internet days. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:21, 16 May 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) 15:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padmnabhacharya swami maharaj[edit]

Padmnabhacharya swami maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant violation of WP:RNPOV; turning this into an encyclopedic article would mean a rewrite. PROD by Mike Rosoft and me declined by page author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally proposed for deletion by me with the reason: "Unreferenced, not written in the style of an encyclopedic article - religious claims presented as a fact". The reason still applies - the article's creator just removed the deletion notice without an explanation or any further changes to the article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Rosoft: to be fair, some references were added, though the citation style is not quite perfect. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 May 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 A Series of Unfortunate Events. Davewild (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V.F.D.[edit]

V.F.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the Great Unknown (A Series of Unfortunate Events) deletion discussion, this is a belabored fancrufty analysis of a fictional entity, rife with original research and synthesis, and most crucially, no evidence of independent notability per WP:GNG, that is, real world notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to A Series of Unfortunate Events: I probably would have nominated the article for AfD myself if you hadn't. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect An impressive piece of fandom that would do well on a Lemony Snicket wiki, but is not suitable for Wikipedia because it's not sourced to third parties and there's no indication of independent notability. The main article probably says almost all that can be sourced. In 100 Google search results the best source I could find was a dialog in AV Club[9] which includes some discussion of VFD, but as I understand it, dialogues (like interviews) aren't reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1417 Walinskia[edit]

1417 Walinskia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 11 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1260 Walhalla[edit]

1260 Walhalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Part of a 16-asteroid group study [10] but it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources. Praemonitus (talk) 19:11, 11 May 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1475 Yalta[edit]

1475 Yalta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: only positional reports and lightcurve opportunities reported. Nothing substantial. Praemonitus (talk) 19:24, 11 May 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1468 Zomba[edit]

1468 Zomba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mars crossing vestoid with a couple of light curve studies plus information in several other scholarly papers. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Along with a couple of light curve studies [11] [12] and brief mentions in several articles about Mars-crossers, it's cited as "the only known Vestoid with a minimum ejection velocity from Vesta greater than 2 km/s" (not counting 1459 Magnya, also a notable Vestoid but not a Mars-crosser) [13]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Milowent's comments and the fact it is a large 13km Mars-crossing asteroid. Overwhelming AfD is harmful to Wikipedia and demostartes that someone is not a team player. -- Kheider (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additionally to the above mentioned reasons, there were interesting circumstances to its discovery - it was first discovered by Cyril Jackson but was also discovered 10 days later by Louis Boyer, whose discovery was reported before Jackson's. (Source: the discovery circumstances in the asteroid's JPL SBDB entry). exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per reasoning given by Praemonitus and David Eppstein. Thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 12 May 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 that the article now meets the notability guidelines, most of the deletes and redirects were before the new evidence provided later in the discussion after which there was no support for deletion. Davewild (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up Straight (1982 book)[edit]

Growing Up Straight (1982 book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable book./ Only 57 holdings in worldcat. Onr review fro m a specialist magazine is not enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. It seems strange to be nominating the article for deletion simply because it currently rests on only a single source. There definitely were other reviews; Kenneth Zucker, a well-known figure, reviewed the book in 1984 in Archives of Sexual Behavior, a respectable academic source. Since that source could be added, I don't see a basis for deleting the article (though this isn't yet a vote). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't think article is sufficiently neutral, especially given the WP:FRINGE nature, however basis for nomination is unclear. Worldcat is not relevant. Those in favour of keeping should seek more sources demonstrating notability and ensure article is more neutral. AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to George Alan Rekers, I don't think there's enough coverage to establish that this book is notable independently of its author. Most coverage I could find was passing mentions in news articles about Rekers, e.g. [14] [15] [16] Everymorning talk 14:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at those references; most of them are indeed only brief mentions, but the third is slightly more substantial, and in fact quite a useful source. I believe it helps to show that Rekers's book has been a subject of commentary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everymorning is not completely correct; most of those references are indeed only brief mentions, but one is more substantial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have any of the delete voters above bothered to look at the review by Zucker? I don't currently have the full article, but I looked at an extract from it, and it's hardly a passing mention. If I manage to get access to the article, I will be adding it to improve the article; I would then ask the delete voters to reconsider their position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Tokyogirl79. I appreciate your work and your willingness to consider that improving the article is worthwhile. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to find the Zucker review and it is quite extensive. I also found a lengthy mention about the work in an academic textbook and a mention in an academic journal article. The coverage is light, but it is enough to pass NBOOK offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tokyogirl79. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem- in all fairness the sources are somewhat difficult to find since there's a lot of unusable stuff to wade through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found another source that discusses this book; it can be seen here on Google books. It states that the book was influential, and gives quite a detailed description of it. I think it's becoming clear that both Growing Up Straight and Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity are notable and that the deletion attempt is misguided. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear to me what the advantage of a merge would be in this case; if there were a benefit to a merge it should be easy to say what it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-trivial mentions in academic journals, a major national newspaper, and multiple other sources mean that this clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Any neutrality issues could be fixed by normal editing. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was an important book in its day, but the article here says almost nothing about it. In fact, I find the article to be quite odd. Hopefully someone will improve it. LaMona (talk) 06:06, 17 May 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 01:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City of Sin: London and its vices[edit]

City of Sin: London and its vices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

routine reviews only. repeated buzzwords from a review does not make for notability. Only 143 library holdings in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria do you use to distinguish a "routine" review from a non-routine one? Wikipedia:BKCRIT does not say that a book's notability depends on the number of holdings in WorldCat. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It easily passes WP:NBOOK which states, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." The page already cites four such works and here's a fifth. Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Unambigously and clearly meets WP:NBOOK - The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Nomination purpose is unclear. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - These reviews look to be just above blog entries. The worst part is that ref #4 is about an entirely different book. Also, there are only three not four refs because the same one is used twice; anyone who actually checked them would have know that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 is not a completely different book. The book was published in London by Simon & Schuster as City of Sin: London and its Vices in 2010 and, in New York by St Martin's (Macmillan) in 2011, as The Sexual History of London. There are reviews of both editions in all the mainstream respectable press such as The Times; The Observer; Literary Review; New York Journal of Books; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:VMS Mosaic, those reviews are absolutely not blog entries. That is utterly false. Per WP:NBOOK, a book is notable if 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. The Guardian and The Independent are daily newspapers in the United Kingdom not blogs. Please be informed before commenting. AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were blog entries. I said they were just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:VMS Mosaic - your attack on The Guardian is unexpected. The Guardian is generally regarded as a highly valuable source on Wikipedia. I question whether you would make such comments about an American newspaper? No evidence reviews were online only, anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most American newspapers are not worth the cheap paper they are printed on. I have no problem calling complete crap complete crap, and most American newspapers are complete crap. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what your personal viewpoints on newspapers are, they are still considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to have this changed then you will have to argue against newspapers as sources at WP:RS- however I will say that it is extremely unlikely that they will completely consider newspapers unusable. Also, it is not as easy as you would think to have a review printed in a newspaper. Most have their own set staff of reviewers and when they bring in others it is usually because they have some credentials that make them stand out above others. Now I will say that some newspapers will reprint blog reviews, but those are usually clearly marked and the ones that do this are actually pretty few and far between. The Seattle PI is the only one I know that does this on a regular basis and even then they only accept blogs that run through BlogCritics.org, which does have some form of editorial oversight. However in this instance the two newspaper reviews are by staff members. I'm not a huge fan of the New York Journal of Books, but they have an editorial staff and have been quoted in enough RS to where they'd be considered reliable. This makes these reviews reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines, regardless of your personal stance on newspapers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have said, meets criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK with the reviews already provided in the article. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. At this point in time newspaper reviews and articles are usable as reliable sources, and there are multiple outlets that have covered this work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article as presently referenced meets WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:26, 16 May 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 and rename to Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards IV. Overall consensus is for article retention, and for the page to be renamed. North America1000 04:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Richards IV[edit]

Robert H. Richards IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E - Cwobeel (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Struck duplicate !vote. The nomination itself is considered your !vote. North America1000 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual in question has several events, not just one. It is alleged that he sexually molested his 18-month-old son beginning in 2005. In 2007 he was accused of molesting his 3-year-old daughter, for which he was indicted in 2008 and pleaded guilty in 2009. In 2010, he apparently admitted the molestation of his son during a probation lie-detector test. In 2014, his ex-wife filed a lawsuit against him for the damages to the children. I find it hard to classify a series of incidents that cover a decade-long period as "one" event. In addition, this story has received national coverage from Forbes, CNN, CBS News, etc, and international coverage. The Attorney General of Delaware was compelled to make a comment on the sentencing of Richards. This is clearly notable and clearly meets the requirements of BLP. GregJackP Boomer! 05:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor to an article on the case, rather than a BLP. Yes, this person has been convicted of some pretty horrific crimes. But at the root of it it's all still WP:ONEEVENT, his notoriety comes from the oddly lenient sentence he received and all the subsequent coverage of other allegations has come from that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. This article contains sources which clearly mention more than one event about the individual. It would comply if the sources not in line with this were simply removed. Also this is a an article about a very wealthy and powerful person concerning events which are of public interests so the question of deletion so soon makes me think that the interests of the parties initiating a claim for deletion are not completely of a moral nature. Ankit255(speak to me) 5:30, 10 May 2015(UTC).
— Ankit255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose. The article contains information of enormous public interest, especially when viewed in the context of current sociopolitical events surrounding the so-called '1% vs. the 99%'. Furthermore, the article (as currently written) gives insight to multiple events (demonstrating a pattern of behavior) that are corroborated by multiple references. Taken together, the article clearly meets the BLP standards and should be preserved. [As an aside, the speed with which the AFD was initiated is beyond suspicious.]Joshuafrazier (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Joshuafrazier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements.Martinyearly (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements. Stop deleting this page, this information needs to be out in the open.67.6.156.198
(talk) 07:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)— 67.6.156.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements. Keep this page up. Fmefleh (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Fmefleh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Rename and redirect to something like trial and sentence of Robert H Richards, it's not a life story, it's about the trial, conviction and sentencin . Govindaharihari (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In this case I think Richards meets the requirements of WP:PERP because of the discussion his light sentence spurred. There are lots of published (not just blogs) opinion pieces about it, including lawyers' comments [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. I would also accept the article being renamed to something like "Trial of Robert H. Richards" in line with Trial of Michael Jackson etc. although I don't feel strongly either way on the name. James086Talk 10:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article makes no effort to cover his life story, solely focusing on his trial, and would easily fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Clawstrider (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Clawstrider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here, since reliable sources have argued that not just the crime, but the light sentence as well are notable and deserving of broader discussion. Sources like this (of which there are many) make it clear that this person is notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has enough reliable sources and the rest of his life can be added in by another user. Moonchïld9 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect as per others above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets BLP and has come up more than once I see. Should be included as separate page. BrotherPanny (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— BrotherPanny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, despite threats (including legal threat and page blanking). Subject meets WP:PERP. Miniapolis 23:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor but keep, and redirect to the article about the case. I would also consider as a second choice a full-fledged keep, because it's definitely possible that he could be notable in and of himself. Red Slash 23:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Roughly 29% of the current article is about the unusual sentencing, so a Keep argument on that basis is very weak. This reeks of emotion-based POV pushing, an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicly shame someone for his shameful deeds, not unlike the TV show To Catch a Predator. A large segment of the population gets something from that sort of thing, but it is not Wikipedia's mission to help satisfy the public's need for vengeance. The current article should be deleted; if a viable article can be formed from a disinterested, objective reporting of issues surrounding the sentencing, that's a separate issue. It would make no sense to keep the article in the hope that it can be transformed into such an article, since there is simply not enough there to start with. (Note, I had no knowledge of this case until about an hour ago and am not invested in the issue one way or the other.) ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename Coverage of this has been widely open and keeps coming back. Plus the unusual sentencing would lead toward inclusion. I believe keeping, but maybe with a rename of matter may assist in framing it more properly. Ozzyland (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Acc. to WP:NOTABILITY, perpetrators of crimes are not notable per se. The conditions listed there for notability are not met by this case. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. The allegations that this person is getting off because he is rich, if worthy of a WP article, would belong in an article on fairness in the justice system, not about the individual in question. If he is treated differently because he is rich, then richness is the issue, not him as an individual, and surely there are many, many other examples that could be used to make that argument. LaMona (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notability is evident from the many sources currently used in the article and from the others available that aren't currently being used. It's not BLP1E, because there are several distinct "events" here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename possibly to "Trial and sentencing of Robert H Richards". There seem to me to be certainly enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, but it is all about the crime and sentence rather than about the person so the article should be refactored to be about that. Davewild (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards (keeping a redirect). The case is clearly notable, but Richards' life story is not what what the article is about and the title should reflect that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The article details a series of events, not a biography. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bank (film)[edit]

Bank (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film I can't seem to find if it was ever released-the link goes to just a random domain for sale site. The release date was suppose to be 5 years ago even! (even odder it says 2007 on the infobox) Wgolf (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site says that it was released in September 2008 (or was going to be released that Friday), but the article itself is saying that the movie would likely receive little to no coverage and just sink into obscurity, which seems to have been the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Well... this 2007 source tells us the a director named Arun Kumar (not specifically Arun B. Kumar) was (at that time) a rookie director/producer, so it is possible the IMDB entry is in error (it happens... specially for Indian films and for many Indian filmmmakers sharing the same name). Since we have so many conflicting sources, I'd suggest (and rare for me) WP:TNT. This source is supportive of that earlier in its stating the Bank film produced in 2007 was released in 2008. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:12, 13 May 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 Cormorant Township, Becker County, Minnesota. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke the Dog[edit]

Duke the Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A dog that became honorary mayor of a township. Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT: no in-depth coverage, no lasting effects, news sources all from the same day. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is NEW article (OTHER article if compare to old article that the same name and have been deleted)! This is about the dog who won mayor election, all Wiki formalized critreious: as WP:IS or WP:N both are presents. Please excuse me for possible mistakes because English isn't my native
--Golodg (talk) 15:22, 17 April 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already said about before and now I can add only that WP:GNG will be passed because the main category for this article is Category:Animals_in_politics. There a very limited list of animals in politics not only for some nation, but also worldwide! --Golodg (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist, there is almost a consensus. Esquivalience t 04:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 04:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to town - I'm sure Duke will be the best mayor that town has ever had, but there are only 12 people there. And for some reason they had to pay to vote? Regardless of the rarity it needs long-term coverage and I don't see any. They need to get Duke a book deal asap like Saucisse. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: according to our article, the township actually has 1039 inhabitants. I'm not sure where the difference comes from. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qwertyus that is strange. But the WP article is about the "township" and the CBS article refers to it as a village ("Voters in Cormorant elected a dog named Duke by a landslide. The 12 people in the village each paid $1 to cast a vote."). Maybe the majority of the township is unincorporated and that could account for the difference. But the $1 is really weird - I don't think a "vote tax" is legal. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The stubbing of the article looks to have already been done. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Lovers Centre[edit]

Pet Lovers Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly part of a PR campaign. I tried to clean it u[p , but all that is left is a list of well-publicized charitable events, each one of which the press covered, just as they were meant to do. That they do PR does not mean that we should follow them. It originated with the well-known Moring277 sockfarm, but others have worked on it, so I don't feel altogether comfortable with using G5. But is another admin does, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stub I was surprised to see a retailer with 85 locations up at AfD. Doing a bit of poking around, this article says it's one of the larger/older pet stores in Singapore. The original article could have been deleted as an advertorial, but now that the effort has already been made to stub it, I think it should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stub per above. There is also some untoward publicity here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 29 April 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, North America1000 03:43, 3 May 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Unknown (A Series of Unfortunate Events)[edit]

Great Unknown (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about something mentioned briefly in a couple of books in A Series of Unfortunate Events. It is not relevant to any major storyline in the series, and large portions of the article are original research, as so little about the phenomenon is explained in the series. Six of the seven references in the article don't count, because they are primary sources and just explain bits of the plot. The other statements in the article — for instance, Widdershins supposedly referencing Plato, inferences made about an illustration in Chapter Fourteen and the Great Unknown's supposed relation to the Bombinating Beast — are unsourced, fancruft and original research. The topic is not notable because it seems only one reliable secondary source has ever mentioned it: an article in The Times (which I cannot access), which is used as the article's final reference.

There is no content in the article that is worth merging/including elsewhere; if this article is deleted, File:GreatUnknown.png should be too and the redirect pages Great Unknown and Great unknown should have their target page changed to The Great Unknown. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:30, 25 April 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, North America1000 03:39, 3 May 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG, only notable within the universe of the books. Keep this stuff at the fan wikis. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:51, 10 May 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, and the only delete vote was clearly rendered moot by the subsequent comments. Cavarrone 09:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Călin Gruia[edit]

Călin Gruia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No credible indication of notability has emerged. This is a blog post masquerading as a newspaper article - a newspaper, incidentally, that allegedly serves Drajna, population 5168. Not only is it self-published, its bibliography draws on three self-published sites, while the fourth item in its bibliography is this, a raw story. In other words, this first "source" is entirely unquotable. As for this, it seems slightly more promising at first glance, until we realize a) it's only a few lines long and b) the book from which it is drawn includes 33,500 capsule biographies of Romanian journalists - some of whom, to be sure, are notable, but surely not all or even a majority.

So we're back where we started: no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. Thus, delete. - Biruitorul Talk 14:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even a limited search of the tabbed links above shows under "books" his multiple publications (307 entries), and under "scholar" 49 references from my location though only 3 in English, none with links. A web search turns up: [25], [26], [27]. I don't speak Romanian, thus the information is difficult to parse, but the last piece clearly shows he was one of the creators of a Radio Theater for children that switched over to TV in 1958 and has been running for over 50 years. The "referatele" link shows that critical references to his work exist in multiple sources including: Contemporanul (1955); Ibidein, Num. 21 (1958); Viata Romaneasca, Num. 2 (1960); Luceafarul, Num. 46 (1967); Cronica, Num. 34 (1977); Viata Ronianeasca, Num. 11 (1980); Contemporanul, Num. 22 (1980); Ibidem, Num. 7 (1981); Romania literara, Num. 16 (1981); Flacara, Num. 29 (1984); and Cronica, Num. 2 (1985). None of these appear to be on line, or at least not from my location, but on-line references are not required for Wiki notability. Sufficient to establish notability. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak, SusunW, weak. poezie.ro is not a quotable source: anyone can register on the site and anyone can contribute whatever they wish, with no editorial policy. As for referatele.com, let me clue you in: referat is Romanian for "book report". It's a site where slacking schoolkids go to copy essays submitted by other kids. Need I explain why such a site can be dismissed out of hand? Finally, as to this - let's call it a marginally reliable newspaper (even as its owner sits in prison), but mention of Gruia within the article is barely in passing: once in a list of names, and once in a few words noting he'd written a screenplay. I'm afraid more effort is needed if you wish to demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul Talk 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Biruitorul: The journals that were mentioned are all legitimate journals and do have on-line sites; however, none of them seem to have on-line archives before 2008. As I said, I do not speak Romanian, but, going back to the books. [28] indicates "Calin Gruia was a pseudonym for Cyril Gurduz. He studied to become teacher at the Normal School in Orhei. Prisoner of War (1944-1948) Between 1951 and 1969, was the editor of programs for children -Radiodifuziunea Romanian and wrote over 50 radio scripts." [29] also confirms radio work. Rumanian Review - Volume 17 - Page 73 in the snippet view shows Calin Gruia's book or books? sold in hundreds of thousands of copies though it is not on-line [30] from sources I can access, but it is clearly possible someone in another location would have access. Same with this source [31] A search of World Cat shows that his books have been published in English, German, Hungarian and Serbian, as well. Publishers do not usually translate in a foreign tongue if there is no success in the native market.[32] The Romanian digitization project [33] indicates two references containing him, but again, I have no access to them. [34] and [35]. He does not have to be internationally famous to merit notability. That he died in 1989 pre-internet and certainly pre-internet in eastern Europe and is still being mentioned as a creator of a children's radio show indicates some note and that his notability has not been temporary. That that creation is mentioned in multiple independent sources, though so far none has been found that discusses it in depth, also demonstrates notability. SusunW (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw this, although not because of the biographical ephemera turned up above, but because it turns out the subject features in the standard Romanian literary dictionary. - Biruitorul Talk 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a delete !vote still so unless CosmicEmperor changes his mind than it'll have to remain open. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 1 May 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, North America1000 03:35, 3 May 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Călin Gruia is mainly considered as an author of literature for children, though it is not necessarily the case, as for Lewis Carol, Jonathan Swift or the brothers Grimm.
    The Junimea publishing house edition of "Moara lui Elisei" by Călin Gruia (Iași, 1979). Photo of my own collection
  1. Announcement of a children's play of this author on Adevărul newspaper, Romanian number one quality (non-tabloid) selling newspaper: http://adevarul.ro/locale/buzau/teatru-copii-sambata-galleria-mall-1_50ae272b7c42d5a6639a129b/index.html
  2. Literary magazine Observator Cultural mentions Mircea Sântimbreanu as one of the leader of writers of literature for children in Romania, amongst: "Gica Iutes, Ovidiu Zotta, Octav Pancu-Iasi, Calin Gruia, Dumitru Almas" http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Sertarele-lui-Mircea-Santimbreanu*articleID_270-articles_details.html
  3. Two of his books on sale at Eminescu Bookstore: http://www.librariaeminescu.ro/autor/342/Calin-Gruia
  4. Audio books by Romanian oldest and most important record label from the 30's until the 90s Electrecord: http://www.discogs.com/Ion-Lil%C4%83-C%C4%83lin-Gruia-Voinicul-BobDeGr%C3%AEu-Fata-P%C4%83durarului/release/6354468
  5. Online bookstore selling his books: http://www.librarie.net/autor/4604/calin-gruia/nia=86/niaadgr=YRHRtf?gclid=CPb064TvucUCFQjKtAodcWcACQ
  6. Books by this author on sale, one still for sale, three sold out: http://www.elefant.ro/carti/autori/calin-gruia-8072.html
  7. Didactic platform presentation of one of his tales: http://www.anidescoala.ro/divertisment/povesti/alti-autori-romani/povestea-olarului-de-calin-gruia/
  8. Presentation of five of his children's tales: http://e-povesti.ro/povesti/calin_gruia
  9. One of his books on sale on eMag: http://www.emag.ro/povesti-ciubotelele-ogarului-nuielusa-de-alun-si-alte-povesti-calin-gruia-ago978-606-8391-09-0/pd/E2VWG0BBM/

Feel free to ask me anything. I've read several tales by this author.

P.S. I added a photo of one of Gruia's books I have in my personal library. Călușaru' (talk) 14:54, 11 May 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 Slash'EM. Don't usually close this early but seems the obvious outcome here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slash'EM Extended[edit]

Slash'EM Extended (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations to reliable sources, fails WP:N. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Slash'EM. Few hits in a Google search, and no hits in a WP:VG/RS search. Does not seem notable. It's a fork of Slash 'EM, so redirection there seems appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slash'EM per NinjaRobotPirate. I also was unable to find secondary sources with a Google search. While it has an entry in the independent RogueBasin, this is a wiki anyone can edit, so it isn't a reliable source. --Mark viking (talk) 18:30, 10 May 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) 15:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will Murphy[edit]

Will Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course, one must also consider his college career and whether he satisfies WP:GNG based on that. In this case, I don't think so. He played three years as a receiver at pass-happy Oregon and had only 24 career catches for 240 yards. Not an impressive collegiate career, no awards, not selected in the NFL draft. I found a couple articles about him in Oregon newspapers, also one about him being signed to the Eagles' practice squad, but not enough significant coverage IMO to satisfy the standard of WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as I can see, fails WP:GNG. Also, reads like a resume or promotional piece.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:06, 12 May 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. Keep was the general consensus of this long discussion. Shii (tock) 07:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dream Focus has pointed out on my user talk page that there is no consensus here and the arguments for notability are quite weak. I suppose I should have relisted this discussion in order for more people to evaluate Jeh's arguments. Shii (tock) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Jones[edit]

David L. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources mention this person at all. Dream Focus 01:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: "number one in a list of electrical engineering channels on YouTube", "849 videos". "200,000 subscribers", successful Kickstarter. I believe this not a fraudulent, hoax individual; worthy enough. GangofOne (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A random blog put him on a list which is no longer there [36] nor is the blog's website. That doesn't confer WP:notability by Wikipedia standards, nor does having YouTube subscribers or a Kickstarter thing. Dream Focus 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nearly 250 million thousand subscribers, over 800 videos posted, and over 41 million cumulative views (see here) makes him far more than "just another you-tuber", particularly given the specialized subject content. (Yeah, and "Gangnam Style" is just another YouTube music video.) I will be adding some of his notable publications (articles in actual, real, in-print magazines, not edited by him), and an interview with him that appeared in a highly respected in-print magazine in the field to the article soon. Jeh (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 250 million? Where did you get that number from? The website you link to says he is the 8,574th most subscribed to YouTuber, and has the 14,684th most viewed videos lately. Do the thousands of more popular ones get articles as well? Notability is not determined based on YouTube subscribers or views though. Its based on significant coverage in reliable sources. If you have these other sources, then link to them. Dream Focus 09:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When it comes to explaining about electronics design, he is the best in the world. Also when there is trouble with fake electronic components or trouble inside companies, many wait for his opinion about the subject. Johan65 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Johan65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dream Focus 13:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My contributions are in the .nl section of wikipedia : [[37]] 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Johan65 Having fans who say he is amazing does not meet the requirements. We have certain criteria that has not been met; there must be secondary sources about him; for example, a newspaper or magazine writing about him (where he is the primary subject of the feature). —МандичкаYO 😜 00:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per WP:SPATG, "under no circumstances consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag [... and one of the "below categories" is: ...] A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits." There is no other evidence of SPA-ness presented; therefore, per this rather firm ("no circumstances") dictum, this SPA tag is wrongly placed. Jeh (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I explained it to you on my talk page already. Read the entire rule, specifically the section Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#Decision-making_tags. It is common in AFD to do this if someone has no other edits other than posting in an AFD. He has since linked to a different language Wikipedia, showing he has also made small numbers of edits there some years for certain subjects. Dream Focus 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • And since, on your talk page, you refused to accept a completely standard interpretation of "under no circumstances", I feel it necessary to point out that bit here. The "entire rule" includes the phrasing I quoted: The fact that an editor has only a handful of edits cannot be the only reason for an SPA tag. You presented no other reason, so the tag violates this dictum. It may be "common" to do this to people whose first edit is an objection to deletion of an article, but I see no way to interpret "A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits" as allowing it, especially since that wording is preceded by "under no circumstances". That's my position and I'm sticking to it. As for what you "explained" on your talk page? "Noted." Please do not address me as if your "explanation" is authoritative or that I should interpret it as such. Jeh (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the sources in the article now. Extech: A company gave an award to a blogger who gave them great reviews for their products. [38] He claims on his website he once published an article in a magazine. [39] A lot of people write articles for magazines, that doesn't really make them notable. It says that "Fluke Corporation mentioned one of Jones' videos on their news page", probably because he gave them a good review. The link to an old news page doesn't mention him at all, nor his video. I don't think the Hackaday prize is a significant award, so being a judge for it doesn't seem notable. Dream Focus 13:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Extech: A company gave an award to a blogger who gave them great reviews for their products" - You should watch the reviews, he gave them a far less than great review, in fact out right accused them of trying to kill him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.255.139 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • [40] "...Dave Jones concluded at the end of the exhaustive 54-minute episode that Extech was the "clear winner" of the shootout and "better than the others overall."" They go into detail about all the good things he said about them, without mentioning anything negative, or mentioning their competition at all. If his final conclusion wasn't to say they were the best, do you think they'd give him an award and mention him on their website? Dream Focus 17:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What award? They didn't give him an award, he awarded them best in that class and they still are very proud of that even after he's slated them in other videos. I think the fact the likes of Fluke, Extech, Microchip etc count his opinion as valuable and worth mentioning even when it's negative criticism of their products should count towards his notability. The fact they have taken his criticisms and changed products due to them should count even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.255.139 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep - see rationale below Delete - Does not meet the WP:BLPPRIMARY. Every single mention is a primary source, and the one of them that linked to his video did not even name him. His name is unfortunately common, but I haven't found anything that meets the requirement of a secondary source. Lpgeffen: please don't misunderstand this and please do not be offended; Being valuable and passing the Wikipedia criteria of notability are not related. When we say does not meet notability guidelines, nobody is insulting the subject or saying they are not a worthy person, not a valued member of a community, not well-liked etc. (At the same time, having an article in Wikipedia doesn't make one valuable or of high esteem either: the most reprehensible people who have ever lived probably have good sized articles.) The guidelines are in place and are firm for a reason to help Wikipedia stay credible; we can barely keep up as it is with the floor of articles being created that are pure spam, incomprehensible content translated by Google, probable fifth-grade homework assignments, advertisements disguised as articles, etc. We use these guidelines of notability not just for people, but for every article, whether it's about asteroids, math equations, cat food companies, a church in Ghana, counterinsurgency in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, cargo plane crashes, French idioms, ethnic groups that nobody but the article creator has ever heard of, and of course, dogs that were elected mayor........ every single of those were the topic of an article I voted to either keep or delete this weekend. Articles that are suggested for deletion are basically pass/fail based on their sources supporting them. Articles can always be restored if sufficient sources pop up down the line. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLPPRIMARY. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • eetimes mentioned his name with others. [41] This is not "significant coverage" as required by the notability guidelines. The Circuit Cellar interview seems to give him ample coverage. [42] But that site allows anyone to submit anything they want. [43] The link shows a post by their editor in chief showing the interview from that issue, but the interview itself was done by someone else called "NAN". Is this person a paid staff member, or just a random person who interviewed some guy on YouTube on their own and tossed it up there? Dream Focus 04:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The eetimes mention may not be "significant coverage" for establishing notability, but that doesn't mean we can't mention it. It's staying. Jeh (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't saying it should be removed, I was just pointing out it doesn't count towards notability. And don't try editing my post again to include the pointless word "comment" before it. Dream Focus 15:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Beg pardon, but you are claiming the entire article should be removed. And the "comment" was just a formatting fix. Isn't it a comment? It certainly is not a !vote. What is it, then? If your comment is not preceded by the bolded word "comment" (or something similar) then it may be construed, at least in a quick scan of the page, as a !vote, and you're not allowed to !vote more than once (your nomination counts as one). The word "comment" is frequently used in deletion discussions to clearly delineate such. Jeh (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The operative word regarding your complaint about CC above is "submit". Yes, just like a great many specialty magazines, and peer-reviewed scientific journals for that matter, anybody can "submit" articles. But if you will read just a little farther down on THAT SAME PAGE, you will see that it says
Our editors carefully review all proposals and finished submissions before making final decisions about publication. The review process can take a few weeks.
This is no different than, for example, Popular Electronics was in the sixties. I do not see how this can be construed to mean that any "random person" can write an article "on their own and toss it up there" and see it published without editorial review.
Besides, CC is a print magazine as well as online. This interview was published in their print magazine. Do you honestly believe that CC would just print—and I do mean on paper—anything anybody sent in without editorial approval? (Are you completely unfamiliar with how magazines work?)
Re "NAN", on the interview page you linked, in the paragraph JUST ABOVE the first line that starts with "NAN:", there is an intro paragraph that ends with:
—Nan Price, Associate Editor
Clearly a staff member. (I can't speak to the "paid" part but I see no requirement in WP:N or WP:RS for such; in fact, plenty of RS's have unpaid editorial staff.) So, that's twice where you've raised an objection to this source and in each case the counter to your objection was right there on the page you were looking at. Maybe you need to "focus" a little better...
If you PM me I can send you a PDF of a scan of the original print magazine, which includes her name in the "staff" box. Jeh (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:USERGENERATED for the rules on this. You can't even consider using something "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Are they a paid staff member, or just some unpaid user submitting something? If the print issue clearly identifies her as a staff member, so be it. Just checking on that to be sure. If that's the case, you have one reliable source giving significant coverage to them. You need at least two. Dream Focus 16:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second things first: We have a second RS, an entire chapter of a book.
WP:USERGENERATED is about self-published sources. Have you ever seen a copy of Circuit Cellar? While it had humble beginnings (it was originally a column in Byte), to think that today's CC would be considered "self-published", or that there is no editorial oversight on contributed content, is ludicrous. By your interpretation, any paper in a scientific peer-reviewed journal would have to be excluded as it would not "originate from credentialed members of the staff".
And I must point out (again) that USERGENERATED does not require that the editorial staff be "paid", only "credentialed". You are making that up, and I wish you would stop that (not that I have any reason to think Nan Price is not paid). btw, the review committees for peer-reviewed scientific journals are frequently unpaid volunteers, nor do the authors of the papers they publish get paid. Your interpretation of WP:USERGENERATED would exclude papers in such journals. On the other hand, freelance contributors to published-for-profit print magazines (like Circuit Cellar), and even to edited web sites like Ars Technica often are paid for their articles. That doesn't make those "self-published sources".
In any case, Nan Price is clearly identified in the print edition of Circuit Cellar as a staff member: "Associate Editor: Nan Price". This is in a box labeled "the team" and she is listed right after the Editor-in-chief and before several "Contributing editors". In your words, "So be it".
Aside: You know, for someone who used to rail vociferously against "deletionists", you seem awfully eager to find reasons to exclude references that qualify this article for inclusion. Even to the extent of ignoring evidence that's right in front of your eyes (the two things I quoted above in italics), and making up requirements like "paid". What happened to you? Jeh (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book has to be notable before it counts. Anyone can publish a book. Does the book meet Wikipedia's notability standards? Dream Focus 17:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I thought you'd come back with that. TL,DR version: Already covered. Check the reference. Don't miss the WL for the publisher name. You might want to brush up a little bit on WP:N and WP:RS while you're at it.
Long version: First, no, a book does not have to be WP-notable before it counts. Details on that at the end. Please put down the WP:N stick and walk away slowly...
If you'll bother to check the reference (please note that the publisher has their own article on WP, WL'd from the reference, which you would know already if you'd bothered to do a little clicking and reading before replying here...) you will find it is not a case of "anyone can publish their own book." It's not the author's "own book", nor is it David Jones' "own book". A book from an established publisher (their "about" page claims over 1000 books in print) stands as a RS unless you can find compelling evidence to the contrary. I'd have hoped you would do such checking before objecting, but it seems you are more interested in getting this article deleted than in doing any research on your own.
I suppose next you'll demand to see favorable reviews of the book in two RSs? No. I'm not jumping through any more of your hoops. I believe that at this point any unbiased closing admin will agree that these two sources are reliable and that they well establish the subject's notability, so it doesn't much matter what you think. If you want to discredit the book as a RS, it's up to you to find evidence supporting your position.
As for the book's "notability": That is not a requirement here. The notability requirements, WP:N and even WP:NBOOK, are about articles. Let me spell it out for you: If we wanted an article about the book, then, yes, we would have to establish the book's notability. But just as individual points covered in an article do not each have to be WP-notable on their own (see WP:NNC), a RS does not have to be WP-notable—that is, it does not have to merit its own article—to be a WP:RS for an article subject's notability. You're making stuff up again, just like you did when you claimed that RSs had to be written by "paid" staff, and I really wish you'd stop that. It makes you look desperate and biased. Jeh (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have "more than 1,000 books in print and electronic formats." No telling how many of them are print, and anyone can toss out anything online. Anyway, being published by publishing company doesn't make a book notable enough to count towards notability of someone. This has come up many times in AFDs over the years. Any closing administrator will take note of that. They will also ignore any WP:ILIKEIT votes. Dream Focus 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability of the book is not a requirement, no matter how many times you declare that it is. You're making that up.
See WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Emphasis added: It says "reliable sources", not "notable sources". There is nothing in WP:GNG or in all of WP:N for that matter that says that the sources used to establish notability must themselves meet WP:N, only that they be WP:RSs! Despite your claims to the contrary.
Notability would be a requirement if someone wanted to create an article about the book. But to be a RS for something else's notability, it just has to be a RS. (Otherwise, where would it end? Are you familiar with the concept of recursion?)
You are also trying to invent another criterion regarding the publisher's proportion of hardcopy to online books. I find nothing that says that an online-only book can't be an RS; but even if that were a requirement, this book is available in hardcopy; and if you will check some of the publisher's other books, say at Amazon or BN, you'll find that many of them are hardcopy too. (I have several of their programming books on my bookshelf.) You're really grasping at straws here. Jeh (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I didn't explain it properly. Not every single book ever published is considered a reliable source. Dream Focus 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (You mean you wrote "notable" when you should have written "reliable source". There's a difference.)
Oh, please. As Wikimandia said above, the requirements are that the subject of the article have received "significant coverage in reliable sources, per Wikipedia's guidelines", further elaborated as "not self-published and not a press release". Fine. The book exists, was not self-published nor a press release, was in fact published by a major publisher in the tech field, and does contain an entire chapter (hence "significant coverage") devoted to Dave Jones. These points are easily verifiable. The book's coverage is also completely consistent with what we find in other places, like the Circuit Cellar interview. If after all that you want to challenge the book's status as an RS you're going to have to provide specific evidence that it isn't, not just general armwaving and FUD like "not all books are RSs".
Aside: Since the book also has a chapter on Jeri Ellsworth I should probably add a similar ref to her article.
Wikimandia: Do you still think the article "has 0 references that meet the requirement"? We have two: The book discussed here, and the lengthy interview in Circuit Cellar magazine, discussed above. Jeh (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change vote) - I think the Q&A in Circuit Cellar (with the mention of his significance in the introduction) is enough to establish notability, combined with other mentions, though I haven't researched the book yet, I'm going on WP:AGF that it exists and was not self-published and he got a chapter. It's been established by a reliable source that he is someone of ongoing prominence and influence in the embedded electronics field; embedded electronics is a highly specific industry but it's a perfectly legitimate mainstream (non-fringe) field. So Jeh I'm changing to keep. FYI, there is NOWHERE that says someone has to be paid for it to be a reliable source. Did I misunderstand that comment? I hope so because I find this preposterous. There are people who contribute articles who, sometimes even on principle, do not get paid. For example, Angelina Jolie wrote an article for the New York Times: "My Medical Choice" about the breast cancer gene. I really doubt they sent her a check for $550 or whatever they pay. Her WP article cites her NYT article four times; there isn't any sane person here who would tag it with "better source needed" and argue it was suspect because she possibly didn't get paid to write it. There are many factors for determining whether or not something is a reliable source, but whether or not someone the author got paid for it has NO relation to that discussion. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the reply. btw I appreciated your level-headed and clearly NPOV comments above. Jeh (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna leave this here http://circuitcellar.com/community/interviews/interview-engineering-for-the-people/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.41.184 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete One interview in a magazine is not "significant coverage in multiple sources" and the book that he's in is of questionable independence. All other sources appear as SPS, or otherwise non-RS sources. Popularity/number of subscribers is not how we evaluate notability as it avoids self-promotion like what many of the other sources in the article seem to do. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. What is your basis for your opinion that the book is of "questionable independence"? Jeh (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on reading on Apress, they clearly have a strong interest to publish books on electronics and programming. That itself isn't necessarily a problem, but they also don't seem to have a strong established editorial process that major publishers would have. It is not that they are a "self-publishing" house, but they also don't seem super discriminatory/demanding as long as it meets their content ideas. It's also a fact that the book's author is a relative unknown; if it was, say, penned by someone with an established history, that would be better for support. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This book is part of a specific series ("...At Work") Apress publishes, and it is not the first of the series nor the most recent. This speaks of an "established editorial process" to develop and publish books of this specific sort. It's not as if this is the sole book they've ever published that doesn't cover specifics of electronics and programming. Jeh (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interviews are primary sources. Notability is obtained from secondary sources. From reading all the sources provided and searching, I think that his blog may be more notable than him. However, I didn't find any potential sources that clearly meet WP:N for his blog with cursory searches. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither WP:N nor WP:BIO includes any language excluding interviews as acceptable sources for establishing notability. Now, I can completely see how an interview would be considered a primary source if the interview subject's own words were being used as references for claims about the subject. For example, if Dave Jones had said in one of these that he was the first full-time engineering vblogger, we couldn't use that as a ref for that claim. That is why WP:NOR includes "interviews" in a footnote, a long list of things that are considered primary sources. But if the author's or editor's introductory material for the interview had stated that, then that is a little less clear-cut. (And that would be why WP:NOR's footnote precedes the mention of "interviews" with "depending on context".) For supporting notability, the lengthy interviews cited here do constitute significant content about the subject. And the very fact of their existence, that the CC editors and the editorial staff at Apress approved these pieces, is what demonstrates the subject's notability (pretty much regardless of what Jones had actually said in them). It's not as if we're relying on statements by Jones that "hey, I'm notable!" I would also agree that these would obviously be "primary sources" if Dave Jones got author credit for them, but he did not. The "author" of an interview for bibliographic purposes (and the person who gets paid, if it's a for-pay assignment) is the person who conducts the interview. Jeh (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I'm not following these arguments to use primary sources when the guidelines specifically say to use secondary sources. Know of cases where such arguments gained consensus? --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try it shorter: What Jones says in an interview would definitely be a primary source for details about Jones. But he didn't pick himself as an interview subject, nor is he the author of the interview, nor the publisher of the book or magazine. Thus for "notability" purposes an interview is not a primary source, but rather secondary: third parties thought Jones was notable enough to devote a monthly magazine feature or book chapter to him, conduct the interviews, edit them (interviews like this are never simply transcripts), and publish them. They were neither written by nor published by Jones, therefore they are not self-published by the source. If Jones had included such an interview in a chapter about himself in a book he himself had published, then the interview would be considered self-published. But it was not. Jeh (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources do not add up to WP:NOTABILITY, and too much of the information in the article is sourced to Jones himself, and thus OR. Interviews are indeed considered to be not third-party sources. Although factual information can be taken from them, they don't confer notability. Unfortunately, the book chapter [44] is also an interview. That leaves us with mentions. LaMona (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my latest rp to Ronz above. Jeh (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 May 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.  Sandstein  20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Succès de scandale[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Succès de scandale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a badly written, unsourced collection of information Trumpetrep (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - article is a mess because it's a poor translation of the French article. I was going to say delete per WP:NOTDIC, but, as a similar manner to schadenfreude it really has made its way into the popular lexicon outside of French and has no real English equivalent; as an expression it is used in headlines in New York Times, Time Magazine; and even Tech Crunch, and it's used in article context in Vanity Fair and Wall Street Journal. These don't mean notability on their own but I think it should just tagged notability. I've never worked on an article about an expression before; if others see potential I'd be happy to TNT this. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until decent references are provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Shouldn't the article's creator, User:Francis Schonken, have been notified of this nomination? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops lost this one out of sight since before there was a really operational references system. I think Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, mentioning at least some of the best-known examples (duly referenced of course), so I suppose exiling it temporarily to user space is not much of a solution. Will see what I can do over the next days, and hope for some similar cooperation from other people who may have been alerted here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems unsure whether it's specifically about scandal in late 19th century French culture which is a legitimate, if specialised, subject[45] (which could however be included in other articles on Third Republic culture). If more general, we need sources discussing succès de scandale as a topic (more generally than saying about individual works "X was a succès de scandale"). Turning it into a list of artistic and literary scandals is possible: Scandal#List_of_scandals omits that topic, while having lists of most other kinds of scandals. For this kind of dictionary definition-like article, we either need in-depth general discussion, or to turn it into a list. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 May 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, Davewild (talk) 15:05, 17 May 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, Spartaz Humbug! 15:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is supported by reliable sources which establish notability. Thanks to Francis Schonken for cleaning up this article. (Though I understand that poor writing is not a reason for deletion). 15:32, 20 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10&oldid=1142223599"