Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 May 10 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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Arana[edit]

Guilherme Arana (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY, never played in a fully-professional league. PROD was contested by the article's creator due to the original PROD'er's inappropriate choice of words in their edit summary, but without addressing the underlying concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already explained above. MYS77 ✉ 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page - Player won all major titles in the U20 category last year in Brazil, he was part of the main squad for the biggest tournaments at the moment - Campeonato Paulista and Copa Libertadores. He was loaned to a club that plays in the top league as well, expected to debut as soon as the next game or the other one. This user - seems to me a Brazilian supporter of one of those south clubs - just wants to create a messy dispute over the article. It's not as it was created just for the purpose of being the one who created it or anything else. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notablity, and applies only to footballers who have played actual matches. Simply being part of a squad or named to substitutes bench is insufficient for this guideline to apply. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That they never played in a fully-professional league is a good reason not to have an article. AlbinoFerret
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darconville's Cat[edit]

Darconville's Cat (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 novel; still an unsourced, unreferenced stub after over four years. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - there are sources, including an NYT review and a Christian Science Monitor article, and it's apparently the author's best-known work. I have a free moment, so I'll actually take a shot at working on this and see what happens. FYI, I generally don't like seeing articles get "saved" at AfD, especially after several years of no work; I must be getting soft in the head. MSJapan (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MSJapan seems to be right, there's enough coverage to meet WP:NBOOK comfortably. [1] [2] [3] [4] Everymorning talk 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually cannot access either JSTOR or the full-text NY Review of Books (it's a paywall). Do we have some sort of resource list somewhere so I can find an editor who does have access to one or both of them through the WP subs? MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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 delete. North America1000 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Mall[edit]

Lloyd Mall (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 shopping mall. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:53, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PC-1 (computer)[edit]

PC-1 (computer) (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)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the non-notable Professor and his local laboratory. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of notability, only source is a source providing very little information at all. --TL22 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an historically important early Japanese computer and how can the article "promote" research work done over half a century ago? Better to search for sources using "parametron computer" which produces significant coverage in books like this one.
  • Comment—The parametron is a type of circuit. There were several computers built using it and the book you found could definitely contribute to that article. The PC-1 (as best I can tell) was just one of many of this kind of computer and as such it may not be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The source provided by the original editor has a pages long section detailing the architecture and development of the PC-1. Takahasi Hidetosi is a notable scientist. We just don't cover Japanese science well. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—There are several references to this particular model in The First Computers: History and Architectures and gbooks seems to think there's something Cerruzi's A History of Modern Computing (but no preview is available). There's a page at the IPSJ Computer Museum. Given all this, I don't think establishing notability will be an issue. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The (parametron) is a historical dead-end in digital circuit design, even though this (adequately sourced) computer managed to be built from them. However that's entirely within scope as an encyclopedia. The subject of this article incidentally is the computer, not the professor, and so why should their WP:Notability be of any relevance? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous keep arguments. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:51, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1802 Zhang Heng[edit]

1802 Zhang Heng (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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect at minimum. The mention in Zhang Heng uses "Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition. New York: Springer. ISBN 3-540-00238-3." as source. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kheider, you can disagree with my nomination, but you cannot edit it to make it say something different. I was really shocked to see that anyone would do that, and have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: NASTRO does not allow deletion of bot created main-belt asteroid stubs. It is either Keep or Re-direct. Your nomination should not suggest deleting the article. -- Kheider (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My nomination states my opinion;you can then disagree in your vote; but you cannot edit my nomination to something very different because you think I should think that. Please do not do it again. Your opinion in the response to nomination section is valued, but you cannot edit my words so that anyone reading would think they were still mine. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You have read NASTRO, correct? Especially the part about re-directing and not deleting asteroid articles? I would give you more respect if I thought you were honoring and had read NASTRO. I certainty hope your goal is not to abuse NASTRO for your own pet project(s). -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no interest in your respect, nor your bad faith. Just please do not re-write my comments as if they came from me; that is very wrong. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree you have no interest in my respect. -- Kheider (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Part of a 42-asteroid lightcurve study [5]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: the one study doesn't even comment of this object. It's just a data entry in a table, which is insufficient per WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 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 William Shatner#Family. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerine Kidd[edit]

Nerine Kidd (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)

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO1E. Mainly notable for being the much younger wife of William Shatner, and even that was due to the circumstances of her death. Sources to illustrate standalone notability of the subject are problematic - the big item that might do it ("runner-up in Miss World") isn't cited anywhere but in a book on alcoholism (so it is likely a trivial mention), and is incorrect. A source I found here states Kidd was second runner-up in the Miss World America pageant, the winner of which goes to Miss World. We don't have articles on contestants at that level unless they went on to win the World pageant, or had some other career that met GNG.

Many of the subject's career details are not covered contemporaneously, but are sourced from obituaries. Much of the article content is trivial: a vague statement of generosity towards her family with her earnings, her early life is notably not about her, and even her career info is scant and taken mostly from two or three sources, one of which is William Shatner's own biography (written after her death, and also not an independent source). Easily 80% of the article is about her marriage to Shatner, alcoholism, and death. Those three items are substantially covered in William Shatner's article already. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:21, 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) 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Camacaro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Armando Camacaro (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 bullpen catcher who fails GNG (and, FWIW, also fails WP:BASE/N). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utica greens[edit]

Utica greens (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 is a procedural nomination of a "redirect" that was listed at RFD. Since this is actually an article, I think it would be better to take it here. The nominator, Buffaboy, had the following to say: "Having made almost 100kb worth of edits on Utica, New York, I think it's safe to say this should redirect to Cuisine of the Mid-Atlantic United States#Dishes, which would be a prose list I suppose, or Endive or something. I just don't believe it should be an article" Tavix | Talk  19:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had added the comment below to the RfD prior to the procedural close. There has been an edit war over whether the article should be redirected or not, and it ended up there when it should have ended up here. My !vote is the same, though. Ivanvector (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article - I think there's enough here for an article, but the current one needs much work. I don't know what notability guideline to refer to for local cuisine, so I'm judging GNG by the diversity of search results, and the fact that Rachael Ray has published her own recipe for this dish. As a side note, this should probably be at AfD since an article was created. Ivanvector (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My quick take is that it's probably notable enough, like many regional dishes. Neither of the nominator's redirect suggestions are good, however, since the dish isn't mentioned on either of those pages. And if it's deemed non-notable, it probably shouldn't be anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely passes WP:GNG. I added three sources in a new Further reading section—a Chicago Tribune article, a Smithsonian magazine article, and a Gastronomica article, the last being a scholarly publication. Utica greens is the subject of each of them. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (note to self: make it for dinner) search turned up lots of hits, recipes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a very well-known, and unique, dish served on tables across Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 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 Keep. Consensus is that the sources provided by Hiroloveswords and others have shown notability. The article has been improved too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Boucher[edit]

Paul H. Boucher (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)

Minor appointed official. The only significant material is some negative material about minor crimes. Wee he a notable elected official it might be relevant--it is not in this case. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, I'm a little puzzled by what you mean by "false" biographical sketch, or why a reference being in the public domain is significant. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what is notable is the case, not the person. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a quick search in newspapers.com and quite a few newspaper articles in the late 1960s to early 1970s. His crimes apparently drew a lot of interest. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:44, 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 Speedy Deleted G7 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Duff[edit]

Thomas E. Duff (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)

city manager of a number of small cities. No evidence for notability. city manager is not one of those positions that necessarily implies notability. The population of the cities was in each case under 35,000, so even had he been an elected official such as mayor, that wouldn't imply notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still received significant coverage in 10th Mountain Division, which was published by a reputable company (Turner Publishing Company), and the Boston Globe. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Err, Hiro, did you read that 10th Mountain Division bit? That's not "significant coverage," that's a CV ... and over half of it is about the collective service of a group among whom he was numbered, not about him specifically. As far as the Globe citations go, if there were a thousand of them, they're still routine coverage, they're not substantial, they run afoul of GEOSCOPE, and they represent only a single source. I see that you're unusually invested in creating articles for Saugus town managers (??), but. Ravenswing 19:52, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Operations Research Society[edit]

German Operations Research Society (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 independent sources, no indication of any notability. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This suffers from the usual problems of articles on academic societies — they don't often write about themselves, when they do so the publications are often in society newsletters, by society presidents, or otherwise not sufficiently independent, and in any case these publications are difficult to locate among the much higher number of publications that mention the society only trivially as the publisher of something else. Nevertheless, I found and added two independent sources to the article, one from the Wiley library and one sourcing its membership as the representative of Germany in IFORS. I think as the main representative body for its nation in a major academic discipline (the subject studied by entire university departments) I think it is sufficiently notable. The article is badly sourced, but that can be solved by trimming it back to only the material that can be properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David's source finds and the independent sources in de:Gesellschaft für Operations Research. Operations research is definitely a real field of study, although it used to be bigger than it is today. The independent source finds show marginal notability, and the fact that this is a bona fide national organization contributes to notability per WP:NGO. --Mark viking (talk) 00:22, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Stoyalov[edit]

Maxim Stoyalov (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 evidence of notability, does not meet WP:NACTOR. There are many films listed in the article, half of them are not notable, half of them are just random where this actor did not seem to play any significant role (or any role at all). Among sources listed in the article:

To sum up, we have a mix of episodic roles that clearly are not significant and a mix of possible hoaxes where Stoyalov appears in one database but is not listed in any other source. None of the roles match WP:NACTOR — NickK (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not cheating ... minor role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOT WP:HOAX, please do not WP:SALT, but just not WP:GNG yet. The name actually is Stoyalov (Максим Стоялов, born in Ukraine, 1989) and Maxim Stoyanov is someone else entirely (Максим Стоянов, born in Moldova, 1987) and is mainly a theatre actor (no overlapping credits). There's way too many listings and photos for him to be a hoax, but they are all directory listings, credits, representation, etc. I couldn't find any articles about him where he was the subject. No articles exist on the Ukrainian or Russian WP as a source for more info. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Stoyalov Stoyanov just different people, just a little information about Stoyalove, Zone 1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do these pictures prove? — NickK (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What plays in the film, and in one, and is ready to raise the Ukrainian spirit and Ukrainian cinema ipnews.
  • Delete Speedy delete was declined because there was no prior AfD but that was just sloppy. The previous AfD was given on the talk page which should have been checked. Nothing has changed since then - completely non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting here because this was mentioned on my talk page: The previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Stoyalov was closed as moot because an admin speedy deleted the article as WP:CSD#G2 (test page) before any opinions could be offered. I therefore declined speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 because there was no prior AfD consensus to delete. I myself have no opinion on this article.  Sandstein  22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it - so I retract the word sloppy. The AfD existed but did not have a chance to form consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing ISBN 1565-9062 SBN 978-3-942855-01-3. Actor, director, screenwriter, not an authoritative source, but I will throw off 1 2 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.16 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actor, director, screenwriter + publishing, reference:


[www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200911/25/01.php, si-sf.ru/den_m_s/ 1] [www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200912/23/01.php 2] [www.novijdom.com/chul22-08.shtml 3] on-magazine.at.ua/index/9_2009g/0-17 4 [www.technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/208/1406 5] 6[ aesthetoscope.livejournal.com/18559.html 7], 8. 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Gênero: Terror Direção: George A. Romero Roteiro: George A. Romero Elenco: Alan Van Sprang, Alexandria DeFabiis, Amy Ciupak Lalonde, Anthony Cancelliere, Ara Katz, Boyd Banks, Daniel Kash, Donna Croce, George Buza, Gregory Nicotero, Guillermo del Toro, Jack Birman, James Binkley, Jamie Bloch, Janet Lo, Joe Dinicol, Joshua Close, Kyle Glencross, Laura de Carteret, Laura DeCarteret, Martin Roach, Matt Birman, Maxim Stoyalov, Megan Park, Nick Alachiotis, Quentin Tarantino, R.D. Reid, Ron Payne, Scott Gibson, Shelley Cook, Simon Pegg, Stephen King, Tatiana Maslany, Tino Monte, Todd Schroeder, Trish Adams, 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 3132 h[ttps://vimeo.com/67805063 33] http://new-rutor.org/torrent/413877/povodyr_povodir_the-guide-2014-satrip/ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.58 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note to closer, this is the only contribution by 188.163.88.58. Also, many of the links are to non-RS. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only they are to non-RS, but especially none of these links shows notability per WP:NACTOR — NickK (talk) 19:27, 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) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Davis[edit]

Dre Davis (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)

Page that has been deleted before-as Dre davis anyway unotable actress. Wgolf (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Simply not notable at this time aside from probably best known for Project Runway with multiple searches finding nothing aside from links at News (nothing significant). I would've suggested moving the article but there's no target.SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable actress, fails WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:02, 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. Per WP:NPOL #1. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ullah Baqi[edit]

Sajjad Ullah Baqi (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)

Prod that was contested-originally I restored the prod thinking it was a blp prod but in fact it was a normal one. No notability mentioned as well as only refs are els' Wgolf (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + wikify to remove promotional tone. Sajjad Ullah meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly one of the four provincial governments of Pakistan as verified by official government source. [[7]]. Cowlibob (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of provincial legislative assembly. which is presumed notable in any country. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up as needed. Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN a former provincial lawmaker. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment via WP:PAK Needs a rewrite and secondary sources. Due to the current state of article, I'm bent towards delete with the possibility of recreation through AFC as the lack of inline references for the content are creating BLP issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of a Provincial assembly passes WP:POLITICIAN which is verified by reliable sources. Article needs editing not deleting. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 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 no consensus. The gist of the discussion, setting aside the various walls of text, is that the topic is probably notable but might need a partial or complete rewrite. No consensus about blowing it up, though.  Sandstein  09:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[edit]

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group (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:GNG and WP:NORG. I was unable to find additional sources that both have a larger scope than city/county and have more than a trivial mention. At time of nom, majority of current references are the sites own webpage (fails 'indepedent of subject' criteria). The israeli gov page does not appear to mention the subject. The jweekly article is at a news source that covers only local news (fails WP:AUD " On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.") The 'san mateo times' article is hosted (and does so suspiciously) on the main website for the group, but even if we assume that it's accurate, it appears to make no mention of the group and is also only local coverage, for San Mateo county. From the articles creation the infobox has listed only 30 regular participants in the infobox (though the infobox was broken at first) [8] ― Padenton|✉   20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Padenton. With regard to finding aditional sources that both have a larger scope than a city/county, please find [[ http://traubman.igc.org/vidnigeriaresponse.htm ]] which states: "I hope these DVDs will help us move toward improving peace and understanding here in Nigeria. We are planning to use them as part of our Train-the-Trainer workshop next week and then provide copies to each of our American Corners for Nigerians across the nation." Suzanne Miller, Public Affairs Officer, Embassy of the United States, Abuja, NIGERIA. [[9]] Maybe you would like to reach out to the Embassy of the United States to validate this statement independently. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BenjaminGittins, self-published sources (i.e. published on the groups webpage) do not generate notability. The group needs significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject(the group). (see WP:GNG for details). And FYI, [[blahblahblah]] creates links to articles on wikipedia, you want to use [] for links to websites outside wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   19:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I am trying to assume that everyone here is operating in good faith User:BenjaminGittins has been editing since 2006, and has been editing this rarely-edited page regularly since he founded the page in March 2013, comfortably using the talk page, and even removing tags from the page. He can hardly be regarded as a novice editor. He has been joined on this otherwise rarely-edited page by SPAs in the past, and a new SPA began to edit the page yesterday. I am not judging the page by the behavior of the editors, there may indeed be sources, but given that this is a page with grand claims and little sourcing - to date - I cannot help but think that it all feels a tad disingenuous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. The article begins with a chat club on Middle East politics begun in a San Mateo living room. There are two ~RS here, a local (San Mateo) paper ran a story about the group when it began in 1992 (archived on this organization's website, not by the paper), and a local, Jewish paper story on its 20th anniversary.[10]. That's a reported story, albeit local, and not much of an indication of notability. But those two stories are pretty much all we have. The rest of the article is lengthy, with many sections, about efforts to use dialogue to produce peace in the Niddle East and elsewhere. It is sometimes asserted that such were efforts were "encouraged" by the San Mateo group, but NO RS SOURCES are brought. User:BenjaminGittins started the article in March 2013, and has monitored it over the years, removing tags (I just put 2 of the tags he removed back up, as they still apply in my opinion,) he added material, links and sources (often to material generated by the group itself; other times with no apparatn connection to "living room dialoge" at all ) what he and no one else ever added are sources to support the article's grandiose assertions that a movement that began in a San Mateo living room has had international impact. Other editors User Dan-el )(aSPA), IP 97.101.228.14 (ASPA), and User:LTraubman added material to this page, then left Wikipedia. As the last man standing , I hope that User:BenjaminGittins can come and source the claims on the page. It is very difficult to hunt for sources to an alleged movement this vague, with no unique words or phrases in the title . Otherwise, I can't see that these Bay Area living room dialogues are noteworthy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Pishcal. You have stated ``this page appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. I am a little confused by this statement. To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. As an independent observer, having considered the activities achieved by this group, I felt that results achieved were significant. I do not feel that *where an article* is hosted is relevant, if that article was originally published by a different organisation. The page as it is currently visible on wikipedia does not include all third party publications related to this group. Please see [[11]] for a more detail list for Video Newscasts, Audio Newscasts and news reports. I removed those references in response to the tags originally placed on the page. Please check that older revision of the page, and please let me know if that addresses the substance of your concern regarding sources... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • comment I had looked carefully through sources before iVoting (above,) and misled by the claims on the page into believing that this might possibly be more than a local club of like-minded individuals who like to talk politics - despite the lack of evidence for that in the sources given. I only just now went to this organization's website, linked from the info box [12]. I am ticked, I feel misused, so I returned to this topic to laud User:Padenton for spotting this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion of what is no more notable than any other book club, bible study group, gourmet cooking group, investment club that meets every week or month in someone's living room. Such groups often continue for decades, raise substantial funds for worthy causes, provide speakers at local events. I now think the best solution is to SPEEDY delete. And perhaps sanction User:BenjaminGittins for removing tags from the page that might have tipped editors off sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear E.M.Gregory: With regard to removing the tags from the page., I would kindly bring your attention to the Talk:Jewish-Palestinian_Living_Room_Dialogue_Group page. On that page you can see that I made announcements that I had adjusted the content of the page in response to the tags. You can also see that I waited months before removing the tags. Furthermore someone called Dan had asked if there were any further concerns. After several months had passed, and no additional concerns were raised, i removed the tags and I recorded publicly in the talk page that this is what I had done. I believe I acted in good faith in regard to the substance of the changes requested. Further, the tags related solely to improving the quality of layout and copy-editing. Those tags did not raise any concern about the legitimacy of the page. If I have made a mistake with regard to some Wikipedia policy that I am not aware of, I apologise. In addition, if I have made a mistake with regard to wikipedia best practices, can you point me to the right location where I can read up on what is considered best practices in this regard. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
    • Dear E.M.Gregory: I am a little confused by your statement that this is: "flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion". To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. So this is not self-promotion. Nor is it flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatent self-promotion. I politely request you detract your false assertion against me. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
User:BenjaminGittins, I now see that you posted on the talk page. Where no one responded. Indeed, what I see it a problem that sometimes occurs on WP, to wit, a page is created filled with assertions and material utterly unsupported by sources (in this case, none of the sources support the claims that this group has primacy among such groups, let alone the sort of global influence that the page asserts. When few or no editors examine such a page, it can stay up for years. Until some alert editor notices it. Such pages are usually started and maintained by a founder, fan, member, or supporter of the group in quesiton. If that does not describe you, I apologize for making such an assumption. All of which still leaves us with an embarrassingly poor page filled with assertions unsupported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Whatever WP:LOCALFAME it may have - and it doesn't seem to have a lot of that, either - it doesn't have the necessary coverage in proper sources to demonstrate notability. I'd remove the spam links, but as this article will necessarily be deleted, no point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I see the issues being raised here. I have only just become aware of the complaints as of today. I will require some time to consider the large number of issues raised. I will require reasonable time as I wish to carefully address each issue raised. I also have intense work commitments that must also be attended to. I created and have maintained this page in good faith. This page has been online for approximately 2 years in service to the community. I feel adequate time should be provided to discuss and address the issues in a well-considered manner. Thank you.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


User:Unicorn46 is a brand-new, SPA, editing only on this AFD. The page itself, though infrequently edited, has been edited by otern single-purpose accounts over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not exactly the 2002 Christian Science Monitor article is about "Arab-Jewish Dialogue, a grass-roots movement that began in the 1980s and that has picked up new momentum in the United States since the Palestinian intifada began anew in 2000" and it says "The national hub for these groups is in the Bay Area of northern California, where organizers Len and Libby Traubman are in the middle of their 10th year of Palestinian-Israeli dialogue" confirming that the Taubmans of San Mateo have been hosting such a group, but the Monitor does not describe the San Mateo living room as the hub or origin.
The Voice of America article confirms that the Taubman living room group has longevity. And that other such groups now exist. Not that the other groups exist because the Taubmans started their
Here's a recent New York Times article about a cooking club that has been meeting continuously for 124 years.[13] It's nice to have your living room chat group written up in the newspaper. It does not make you notable.
An broader article about Israeli-Palestinian grassroots dialogue groups might work.
This article is about a specific group in a specific living room, but most of the copy is about dialogue with no indication of a relationship to the Taubman living room group. The infobox is about this small, local group, which the lede asserts has "grown to global influence". I just don't see evidence this living room club has global significance. Despite the fact that it was the subject of a handful of color stories during the second intifadaE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 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,  Sandstein  15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The few extra days to improve this article are appreciated. I am open to suggestions as I work to address the issues that have been raised. Unicorn46 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there should not be duplicates in the "references" and "external Links" sections. I will clean that up as soon as I have finished with inserting the needed citations. Thank you for your patience with this " brand-new, SPA," I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I still appreciate your patience. Unicorn46 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Oo7565.. Thank you for being involved in the acceptance process for the submission of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group page on Wikipedia on 7 April 2013. There is currently some discussion about deleting this page. I was wondering if you might be able to provide some constructive information on why this page was originally considered suitable for acceptance on Wikipedia. I was also wondering if you could also contribute some suggestions on how the current contents might be improved, so as to avoid this page being deleted. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory Thanks for you feedback above (sorry for replying down here, I'm trying to add comments below the notice above. I accept your apology. I'm personally embarrassed that this page is not as good as it needs to be. I hear your concern about the references, and I will need to see what can be done about that. It is correct, that I have edited several pages before. Several of my changes in the past have been within the capacity of small changes here and there. This is the first time i've created a page on Wikipedia from scratch. I acknowledge i've had difficulties in wrapping my head around the editorial style and requirements. I would like the opportunity to try and improve it over time, to incrementally bring it inline with WP requirement. Ultimately it may prove that it is not possible, but at least I would like to try to do that. As with regard to timing, I have been working 7 days a week all this year, which translates into not having as much bandwidth as I would like to address the above concerns at the speed I would like. I still haven't got my head around all the feedback provided so far, and I apologise about that. I appreciate peoples patience. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal, Oo7565, and any other concerned editors: I am thinking about next steps... I am concerned that there are a lot of issues raised in parallel, but i'm not sure how I should prioritise those concerns. What are your collective thoughts on the following strawman process. Step 1. As the person that created this page, I write a short statement about *why* I thought the page was worth creating. Step 2. I systematically address / collect adequate references. Step 3. If previous 2 steps were adequate to address concerns wrt. those points, then look at how the style and content of the page needs to change, and propose various changes. Step 4. Start making changes on the main page. If that sounds about right wrt. process, can the editors please point me to a few links that state what requirements need to be met to justify a page existing. I will then work on point 1, outlining my own motivations for the page, and how I perceive they satisfy (or fall short of) wikipedia requirements. ... Alternatively, if you and the other editors think a different item needs to be addressed as the highest priority, can you and the other editors come to an agreement on what that is, and provide me with links to the pages outlining what needs to be satisfied to address that highest priority point... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • I increasingly think that this not a naive editor, but, rather, someone using Wikipedia for promotion of a pet cause. This editor knew how to put up citations the day he created this article. With the time he has spent arguing on this AFD, he could have put up any number of solid sources - if he had them. There is a track record of removing tags without fixing the problems. And also of SPAs dedicated to editing this one article, a new SPA appeared during this AFD. Frankly, it feels like we're being played.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What you need to do is show why this group is notable. I don't think you can, but like everyone else here, if it turns out to meet the policies linked above, you can convince us of such and the article can be kept. Look at the WP:GNG and WP:NORG criteria and find reliable sources (these cannot be self-published, written by people involved in the group, etc. WP:GNG provides a nice definition for these sources, apply that to the WP:NORG criteria as well. You might find this helpful: Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging ― Padenton|✉   17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reply" E.M.Gregory, Padenton, the consensus appears to be that the highest priority is to address solid sources. So I will begin to work on that. See my point below.
  • "Reply" E.M.Gregory, here is my first very quick cut at off-site references. I have extracted this from the original page, so you do not have to wade through links that pointed to copies of articles/videos created by third party sources that were mirrored on the Traubman website.

News Reports[edit]

  • May/June 1996 - Timeline - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group: Jews and Palestinians Cooperate for Peace
  • Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Hundreds of Jews, Palestinians get taste of unity here Article
  • Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Grassroots ties bolster peace talks, Mideast envoy says - Article
  • November 15, 1997 - San Jose Mercury News - Abraham's Children: Jews, Palestinians seek peace through dialogue
  • November 21, 1997 - Christian Science Monitor - To Build a Common Future - Article
  • November 22, 1997 - San Mateo Weekly - Editorial - Jews, Palestinians gather together
  • Sunday, April 18, 1999 - San Jose Mercury News - Traditional enemies meet as friends
  • June 23, 2000 - J Weekly - Palestinian-Jewish quilt offers pattern for peace, social change - Article
  • September 22, 2000 - J Weekly - Nadim Zarour, Arab-Jewish dialogue pioneer, dies at 49 - Article
  • October 13, 2000 - Santa Cruz Sentinel - Local group brings opposing Palestinians, Jews together - Article
  • December 1, 2000 - J Weekly - Teens tackle coexistence, Mideast strife at JCC Club 18 - Article
  • March 31, 2001- San Jose Mercury News - Palestinians, Jews can unlearn old habits - Article
  • January 19, 2002 - National Journal - The Weekly on Politics and Government - Washington, DC - Jews and Palestinians Begin to Talk, in America
  • January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Making peace in the living room - Article
  • January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Defusing the intifada in Bay Area living room groups - [15]
  • September 11, 2002 - San Francisco Chronicle - 9.11 Voices / A New Life as The Enemy Within - Article
  • November 3, 2002 - Associated Press - Student forums help Palestinians, Israelis reach out - Article
  • November 3, 2002 - Free Lance-Star - Forums at U.S. campuses try to ease Mideast tensions - Article
  • November 26, 2004 - San Francisco Chronicle - Cookbook brings Israelis, Palestinians to the table - Article
  • February 1, 2005 - Kalamazoo Gazette - Peace-camp reps build resolve
  • September 23, 2005 - J Weekly - 140 Arabs and Jews share ‘magical’ Tawonga weekend - Article
  • January 27, 2006 - Oakland Tribune - Scholars, pacifists, praise elections - Article
  • June 25, 2006 - YNet News - Explosion of peace efforts - Article
  • June 29, 2006 - Golden Gate Xpress - Palestinian-Israeli conflict promotes peaceful student communication
  • September 8, 2006 - San Francisco Chronicle - Peaceful setting, intense dialogue - Article
  • October 16, 2007 - Oakland Tribune - Palestinians, Jews unite at Yosemite camp - Article
  • October 19, 2007 - J Weekly - Jews, Palestinians talk peace under the pines at Tawonga - Article
  • October 16, 2008 - CNN Anderson Cooper 360 - Palestinians, Jews engaging and creating - Article
  • November 20, 2008 - Cultural IQ - Jews-Palestinians: There's A Meeting in the Living Room - Article
  • November 27, 2008 - Jewish Herald-Voice - Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group: Listening In the Midst of the Storm - Article
  • January 9, 2009 - Palo Alto Online - Finding world peace in the living room: Local Jews, Palestinians have been learning from each other for 16 years - Article
  • January 18, 2009 - Journalist Hana Baba - Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue - Article
  • May 05, 2009 - Common Ground News Service - Enemies no more: the power of sustained dialogue - Article
  • May 12, 2009 - New Jersey Jewish News - Dialogue forum seeks hope beyond the headlines - Article
  • June 01, 2009 - Mideast Youth - Dreamers and Believers Changing Reality - Article
  • February 8, 2010 - Journal of Interreligious Dialogue - 214 Dialogues for Peace - Article
  • February 16, 2010 - San Francisco Examiner - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogues - [linking to examiner.com blacklisted by Wikipedia]
  • February 20, 2012 - Yosef Gotlieb - Peacemakers turn their sights on Nigeria - Article
  • April 25, 2012 - NCDD - Harlem Cinema with Audience Participation: Beyond Q&A, Giving Voices to Everyone - Article
  • May 3, 2012 - Insight on Conflict - Young Nigerians illustrate life beyond war - Article
  • December 13, 2012 - J Weekly - Jewish-Palestinian dialogue group still going strong after 20 years - Website page
  • 25 January 2013 - The Washington Post - Food truck will deliver message of Mideast peace - Website page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGittins (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlines?[edit]

  • It is not clear to me that there is a hard deadline for resolving the issue on this page. That is to say, I cannot see any obvious indication of a deadline with regard to this page achieving a consensus. However, I would prefer not to be caught unaware by some procedural detail only known to those who are regularly involved in considering articles for deletion. Can someone please clarify this point? Also, is there some page of policies and procedures that I should be aware of as one of the people defending this article? Benjamin Gittins (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

  • The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [16]

Thesis[edit]

The Dialogue Group and participants have been included as subjects of research papers and theses.

  • ARAB-JEWISH COOPERATIVE COEXISTENCE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE by Avi Zer-Aviv -- University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2005
  • BRIDGING DIFFERENT TRUTHS: Creating Dialogue for Reconciliation and Healing by Yuichi Ohta -- The International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan, 2003
  • BUILDING PEACE BETWEEN PEOPLE: The Role of NGOs in Transforming Relations Between Israelis and Palestinians by Louis-Alexandre Berg -- Brown University, 2000
  • A CALL FOR ADVENTURE-BASED CONFLICT RESOLUTION by Shawn M. Dunning -- George Mason University, 2004
  • THE COMPASSIONATE LISTENING PROJECT: A Case Study in Citizen Diplomacy and Peacemaking by Marie Pace -- Syracuse University, 2005
  • COMPOSING A CIVIC LIFE: Influences of Sustained Dialogue on Post-Graduate Civic Engagement and Civic Life by Ande Diaz -- Fielding Graduate University - Santa Barbara, CA, 2009
  • CONVERSATIONS FOR PEACE. An Oral History of the Path to Palestinian and Jewish Reconciliation in Two California Communities by Allison Helise Rubalcava - California State University, Fullerton, 2001
  • DIALOGO INTERCULTURAL: Comunidad Arabe y Judia en Chile by Lorenzo Agar Corbinoes & Abraham Magendzo Kolstrein - Santiago, Chile, 2009
  • DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, JEWS AND MUSLIMS: The Concept of Covenant as Basis by Ian Rex Fry, RDA - MCD University of Divinity -- Kew, Victoria, Australia, 2012
  • EVALUATING PEACE EDUCATION IN THE OSLO-INTIFADA GENERATION: A Long - Term Impact Study of Seeds of Peace 1993-2010 by Ned Lazarus - American University - Washington, DC USA, 2011
  • THE FIELD BEYOND WRONGDOING AND RIGHTDOING: A Study of Arab-Jewish Grassroots Dialogue Groups in the United States by Nurete L. Brenner - Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA, 2011
  • GENERATING FORGIVENESS AND CONSTRUCTING PEACE THROUGH TRUTHFUL DIALOGUE: Abrahamic Perspectives by Hilarie Roseman -- Macquarie University, Sydney,Australia, 2013
  • MUSIC FOR PEACE IN JERUSALEM: A Senior Essay in International Studies by Micah Hendler -- Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2012
  • QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: Conflict Resolution Framework and Building Relationships Through Dialogue in the Peace It Together, 2008 Initiative by Danielle Sleiman - Simon Fraser University - Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008
  • SHIFT HAPPENS: Transformation During Small Group Interventions in Protracted Social Conflicts by Nike Carstarphen -- George Mason University - Fairfax, VA, 2003
  • TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION by Adi Greif -- Stanford University - Stanford, CA, 2006
  • Please note that a number of edits were made on this page over the weekend, including moving many of the urls from the External Links section into the References section as they were tied to the text of the page as citations. It is my understanding from reading the instructions that it is best not to have duplicates in the two sections, so it might be helpful to insert some of the unused urls into the page as citations where appropriate. Some of the sections were merged as suggested and a section was added on international activity since there was some concern about the actual impact of the group outside of San Mateo. In addition, a number of media references were added and an effort was made to list direct sources to those media references, rather than referencing The Dialogue Group's list of all their activities since 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

  • A thorough and recent interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [17]. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010, [18] Benjamin Gittins (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have the requests for citations of credible sources been adequately addressed by the contents of the updated page and in the links above?[edit]

  • The problem here is that most of these are still either just local news (JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc.), Self-published (San Francisco Examiner), opinion articles by members of the group (The Christian Science Monitor article above, CNN Anderson Cooper article, among others), or simply a brief mention of the group (Washington Post article, Associated Press article etc.) I'm still not seeing anything passing WP:GNG, and no evidence the thesis papers would likely pass it either. Local news coverage is not enough, as explained in my nomination. WP:GNG requires "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."
  1. Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group.
  2. Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published.
  3. independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability.
The only sources that matter in this discussion here are those that would satisfy WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't as of yet, have a view on notability. But as to Padenton's comment above, I agree in part and disagree in part. Sources such as JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc. certainly do count towards notability. Self-published opinion articles by members of the group do not. Brief mentions of the group do not by themselves demonstrate GNG, but if there is enough in Washington Post articles, Associated Press articles, etc., along with the first mentioned sources they can satisfy wp:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to list WP:AUD as well: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They count towards notability. If your point is only that at least one regional or national or international source is necessary, that is true. But those exist as well. Though they are not devoted to the subject. But Jweekly, for example, is regional covering 20,000 readers, and some of those other refs are RSs ... and the knock on those sources as not counting towards notability is an exaggeration (unintentional) of what our guideline actually says. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: Jweekly isn't regional, it covers the city/county of San Francisco. 20,000 readers is nothing, there are 50 million people in California and 850,000 in San Francisco county alone. There are nearly 20,000 people in every square mile of San Francisco. I grow tired of digging for a needle in this haystack of non-WP:RS or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources(many of which have now been listed several times), so if you don't mind, I would appreciate if you would be specific about which one I missed. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Padenton -- that's a bald mis-statement. Of course Jweekly is regional. Where in the world do you come up with the unsupported statement that it only covers San Francisco? That's a mis-statement. Presumably unintentional on your part. Have you read the publication's "About" section, for example. Which clearly states: "the newspaper serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California.". I haven't even !voted as of yet, but I'm concerned about your engaging in exaggerations and mis-statements to support your position. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: It's written right here in their logo: [19]. See WP:AUD: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If you look through their articles, jweekly purely covers SF stories. SF Bay area is not a region, it's a few counties. It also fails the "media of limited interest and circulation" requirement. The SF Bay area has 7.5 million people. ― Padenton|✉   17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does cover the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, a region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California, which region also surrounds a number of other bays including San Leandro Bay, Suisun Bay, San Rafael Bay, Richardson Bay, Grizzly Bay, and Honker Bay, and which region encompasses the major cities and metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, along with smaller urban and rural areas. It also "serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California." This is what is meant by a "regional" newspaper. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: Group in the Northern Region of Cameron inspired by the work of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. [1] CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders[2] International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.[3] Christian Science Monitor – 8th and 27th sections (count single sentences as sections) of this article specifically mention the group founders and the Dialogue Process used by the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and that the national hub for the Dialogue groups is the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[4] Voice of America News Article specifically mentions the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders in the very beginning of the article and again at the end[5] The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, specifically mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group – see Page 2[6] The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles specifically mentions the groups founders and the work of the group. See paragraph 2 [7] ABC, NBC and CNN interviewed members of the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group during the 2000 Intafada and while the files now have to be accessed through the site of the founders, they do, none-the-less exist, the group was considered “notable” enough for three national new channels to interview its members and the news clips can be watched on either a MAC or a PC. Go to the year 2000 and see the third entry.[8] The NeedCSI Website in Nigeria notes a Film and Conference for over 200 diverse African women and men which resulted from the International collaboration between the New Era Educational and Charitable Support Foundation and the Jewish Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, California, USA held in Jos, Nigeria [9] The United Religions Initiative reports on its website about a project in Nigeria’s Bauchi State that was inspired by the Jos, Nigeria Conference. [10] Journal13H – a news program in the Ivory Coast ran a story on the Albino/Non-albino Reconciliation meeting with English subtitles. The Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group was the co sponsor of the gathering and the name of the group can be seen on the banner in the video. Members of the group helped facilitate the meeting. While the group leaders posted the link – the event still happened and it drew media attention in the Ivory Coast. [11] The Jewish Herald Voice is not a local paper – it is, in fact, published in Houston, TX[12] Unicorn46 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://globalcompassio.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/interfaith-dialogue/
  2. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  3. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/
  4. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p11s01-lihc.html
  5. ^ http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2006-06-20-voa40/317928.html
  6. ^ http://www.monmouth.edu/university/directory-of-arab-jewish/israeli-palestinian-groups-for-dialogue-and-peaceful-coexistence.aspx
  7. ^ http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/jews_and_palestinians_talk_peace_under_norcal_pines_20071102
  8. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  9. ^ http://needcsi.org/new/dialogue-in-nigeria-muslims-christians-creating-their-future/
  10. ^ http://www.uri.org/the_latest/2015/05/a_strong_partnership_between_facis_and_jewishpalestinian_living_room_dialogue_in_san_mateo_california_usa
  11. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Herald-Voice
These are already in the list above and suffer from the problems stated. ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: CNN and MSNBC TV

  • CNN World News - 2000, [20]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video.
  • CNN Program Transcript, [21]. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [22] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly..
  • MSNBC-TV news (documented by the United States Institute of Peace) [23]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing the requirements of WP:GNG[edit]

  • Padenton, I politely disagree with your statement that all the references mentioned by Unicorn46 "suffer from the problems stated". I appreciate that many of the links cited above refer to the activities that this group has contributed to (i.e. the deliverables of the group.). So I will try to create a more focussed list below. Specifically wrt. to 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." If I understand correctly, the topic here is the "Jewish-Palestine Living Room Dialog Group". My understanding is that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content". So I am trying to compile the following links that are EXPLICITLY on the notability of the group itself, are reliable, are independent of the subject, and that includes multiple sources, thereby satisfying requirements of WP:GNG. I note that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage"... However in this case Notability continues to resurface over time. Please also note that the links below satisfy the requirement to have at least one regional or national (MSNBC) or international source (CNN, GOLDENROOM).
  • CNN World News - 2000, [24] You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. This talks about the living room group directly..
  • CNN Program Transcript 2000, [25]. This is the transcript of the above video clip hosted on the CNN website.
  • MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [26] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room group directly..
  • A interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [27].
  • Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders [1]
  • International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.[2]
  • http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7051/grassroots-ties-bolster-peace-talks-mideast-envoy-says/ . This talks about the living room group directly. U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. The diplomat Dennis Roos "heaped praise on the dialogue group, which has promoted the search for common ground between the two peoples for the past five years." "What this group represents is what the peace process is all about," Ross said. "Peace has to connect people. It has to build bonds between people." "I don't want it limited only to America. Frankly, where we need it most is in the area," he said, referring to the Mideast.
  • The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [28] -- Directly about the existence and activities of the group.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  2. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/

Have the concerns regarding WP:GNG now been successfully addressed?[edit]

  • No, will you please stop spamming the same poor sources as before? It is beginning to get disruptive. I do not have all the time in the world to do your work for you, digging through every article from an unreliable source you post multiple times in this AFD hoping to flood the page so that some inattentive closer will hopefully close it as keep because he can't see anyone in favor of deletion. I am a strong believer in WP:AGF but this is getting ridiculous. If you can't provide sources meeting WP:GNG and WP:NORG then newsflash: your 30-person dinner club is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I still do not see a single source that is INDEPDENDENT of the subject(That means no articles from the creator of the group, or members, and interviews do not count either) and more than LOCAL coverage. Pick some out, post it (and ONLY sources meeting those criteria) below. ― Padenton|✉   20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As per Padenton. But also, as I stated above, I have come to suspect that this experienced editor, editing on a rarely edited page that has been edited by a series of SPAs, unusually familiar with Wikipedia procedure, and certainly an avid partisan of this group, seems to be displaying faux ignorance in an effort to game AFD and keep this page live.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rankism. I am concerned that the complaints against Unicorn46 regarding that user's particular skillset, and labelling that user as SPA in this case may be being used as a form of [Rankism] to diminish the independent contributions of that user. I do not see any "gaming" taking place here. Rather, I see a genuine attempt to address the concerns raised by various editors. To be clear, I am not Unicorn46 and I have never met or talked with Unicorn46. I do not use sock puppets. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very helpful to know why, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Christian Science Monitor, The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM publishing in the UK, The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles are not considered non-local groups reporting on the activities and impact of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Group. It would also be encouraging if we could stay focused on the effort at hand and continue to "assume good faith".Unicorn46 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unicorn46: It's simple. It's been explained above. Now stop wasting our time.― Padenton|✉   14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate criteria - With regard to [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)][edit]

  • Alternate Criteria. Dear Epeefleche,E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal:
  • Padenton, this is not a dinner club. This is a group engaging in Track_II_diplomacy, and engaging in assisting peace-building processes at the community level. Padenton and E.M.Gregory, this page does not require WP:SECONDARY to be notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements: "alternate criteria, primary criteria, general notability". With regard to Alternate criteria for non-commercial organisations:
  • Some organisations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. - Clearly this groups has achieved both national and international notice, for their local activities as evidenced by CNN and MSNBC. There is is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area with regard to this point.
  • Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. -- This group has received over 40 independent citations regarding the group itself, and its activities. You could say, for such as small group, this is a very impressive result, and is notable in its own right. The achievements of this group are also noteworthy.
  • I believe this group is notable based on Wikipedia's alternate criteria policy, independent of WP:SECONDARY.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the CNN and MSNBC citations?[edit]

  • Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Can you please explain in more details what is the problem SPECIFICALLY with the MSNBC and CNN citations... I am trying to understand your concern in the context of the primary and alternate notability criteria. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short list of Video sources that are clearly independent, and available online[edit]

  • Dear Padenton you stated: WP:GNG requires "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." 1) Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group. 2) Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published. 3) independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability. -- the following items meet those requirements. Clearly, the following videos have not been manipulated, and so can be considered credible irrespective of some of them being mirrored on the Trabuman website (Citing a/v news media sources is hard, as many of those sources do not keep copies of all their interviews and articles online):
  • January 2009 - NBC-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
  • January 2009 - KTVU-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
  • October 2000 - Heather Ishimaru, ABC-TV News - Video (WMV format)
  • CNN'S Don Knapp. CNN World News - 2000, [29]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. The Program Transcript, is here [30]. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • MSNBC's Ashley Banfield, MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [31] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly.. It talks about new groups being made as a result. --- This video is documented by the United States Institute of Peace here: [32]
  • January 31, 2005 - Channel 8 Kalamazoo - Peace Camp Leaders - Video (WMV format)
  • September, 2005 - CBS-TV - Peacemakers Camp News - YouTube Video

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is the problem with these
  1. Local news(says so at the start of the video)
  2. KTVU is a local news affiliate.
  3. ABC-7 is local news.
  4. Interviews with members of the group. This fails WP:INDEPENDENT as I have said several times now.
  5. Not about the group. Notability isn't inherited, and you're not notable just because a few new groups are created.
  6. Local. Rule of thumb: Anything that says "channel _" or some random 4-character designation (KTVU, etc.) is local news.
  7. Local news (cbs5), coverage is not about the group.
The reason these sources don't keep copies of all their interviews and articles hosted online is because they're local news coverage. Stop wasting my time. These have the same exact problems that have already been said multiple times. ― Padenton|✉   17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Padenton, With regard to WP:AUD, under Primary Criteria: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."". Clearly, the two videos you didn't mention, re CNN World, MSNCBC and the print source you may have overlooked by Voice of America [33], collectively qualify as satisfying "at least one national/international source". So from what I understand of the WP:AUD, this implies that the other 'local news' sources can now be used within the context of the Primary criteria. There are also Alternate criteria for non profit organisations, such as: "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. " Obviously that does not exclude all local media sources, but only media sources that are geographically local. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: The "two videos [I] didn't mention" were ones I in fact mentioned. If you can't understand how to read a numbered list, I don't know how to help you. Is this a non-profit organization? Non-profit organization is a legal classification, it doesn't just apply to any number of people that meets up and doesn't exist for a profit-driven goal. You need to be registered with the government for that, feel free to provide a link to a government database showing this. But even then, there is 0 verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ― Padenton|✉   19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More independent reports from credible sources[edit]

*More independent reports from credible sources on the activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group Associated Press Article that mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group [1] Associated Press Herald Journal article on how the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group coordinated a dialogue at Georgetown University [2] Washington Post - See 5th paragraph after the second picture [3] The activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group have reached far beyond their beginnings as a group of concerned citizens meeting in a living room in 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ifapray.org/archive/Understanding_Palestinian_Terrorism/UPT2003/Anti-Semitic%20Acts%20Up%20on%20Campuses%20%20-%20March%2028,%202003.html
  2. ^ https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20021103&id=pK0nAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J9AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5271,597393&hl=en
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/food-truck-will-deliver-message-of-mideast-peace/2013/01/25/b121ea7e-6665-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html
Again, this is the problem with these
  1. Brief mention. There is no discussion of the group. Len Traubman is quoted, and Traubman is mentioned as the founder of the group. This article says absolutely nothing about the group itself.
  2. Brief mention. Helping coordinate an event doesn't give a group notability. A source being used to establish a group's notability needs to provide significant coverage of the group. I.e. a standalone article should be able to be made based on its information. This is not the case here. From this source, the most that could be said about the group is that it helped coordinate an event.
  3. Again, brief mention. This article is about a food truck owner. Libby Traubman is quoted, and introduced as the co-founder of the group: "said Libby Traubman, co-founder of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue, which tries to facilitate interaction between Arabs and Jews. “It think it will work because, well, everyone likes food.”" There is no other mention of the group in this article.
These show nothing about the groups notability. It suggests (to me) that Len and Libby Traubman might meet the notability guidelines(with other sources), but there is nothing here to suggest that the living room group is notable. ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Padenton, the observation that one person is the group's contact point and thus more-interviewed is not reason to diminish the group's collective global effects, any more than if another group's executive director is more commonly interviewed to describe a collective endeavour. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: For the tenth time, sources where some member is quoted for an unrelated story and the group is mentioned only to provide context for that person's quote, DOES NOT GIVE YOUR GROUP NOTABILITY. I grow tired of being notified to this article 5 times a day when you repeatedly refuse to provide any sources establishing notability and meeting the criteria that you were told about in the fucking nomination. Do not post my username again without providing a source that is reliable, independent (Where the coverage of the group is not written or said by a member of the group), substantial coverage (meaning NO BRIEF MENTIONS), and in a news source that is not local news. ― Padenton|✉   19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Despite, or perhaps because of, the walls of text above, nobody has actually expressed a "delete" or "keep" opinion since the last relist. I ask that previously uninvolved editors do so now, and that the editors who have written the walls of text above leave the discussion to others for now.  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but TNT: Surprisingly the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. However this "article" is a trainwreck. It's written in a promotional tone, not an encyclopedic one, and is overall a mess. Wikipedia is not the "About Us" section of a website. Blow it up and start over. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wide variety of sources brought forward during this debate show the notability of the group quite convincingly. The combative and dogged behavior of an editor fighting to delete the article is unseemly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I agree with that comment. Something else is going on here, which is pretty clear to an outsider. This is nuts. FYI I would be willing to overhaul the article to improve it to decent standards if nobody else plans to do so. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Some of the arguments above are troubling, in that they are not just wrong-headed but border on something worse. We have sufficient substantial coverage from appropriate RSs to warrant a keep !vote. Some of this may not have been evident to early !voters, but the discussion has been helpful in this regard. Obviously the article needs cleaning -- but that is irrelevant to the !voting here, as AfD is not for cleanup. Kudos to the above editor for offering to clean it up. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT. I agree with Epeefleche - there are sources that bring this to GNG (e.g. the Xtian Sci Monitor article ([34]). The problem is that the article itself is not written in an encylopedic style and has lots of extraneous stuff. Most of the "Means of Change" section is unrelated to the group and may need wholesale removal. The Activities section is way overdone. The DVD section simply should be removed. It's got major reference spam. TNT is the only solution. I'm willing to help, but it's a big job. Any other offers? LaMona (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a "deep edit" to be found here User:LaMona/tnt. It still has a lot of OR in the list of related groups, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I removed all non-RS sources (other than those in that list). I did not add other sources that have surfaced here. Anyone have a comment? LaMona (talk) 17:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Aaker[edit]

Jennifer Aaker (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)

Solely promotional page written like an extended resume, would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We may be able to cut down on some promotional tone, but this has a lot of sourced prose, so it isn't too much like a resume and wouldn't require a rewrite. Some bulleted sections are allowed, particularly in standard WP biography sections like Publications or Bibliography (which might just be better renamed Further reading). The subject is definitely notable per WP:GNG and WP:PROF (at least because of holding a named chair at a major university, possibly other criteria). EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Very clear passes of WP:PROF#C5 (named chair at Stanford) and #C1 (citation counts 4936, 945, 903, etc). Article does not look irredeemably promotional to me; it mostly recounts her accomplishments, exactly as such an article is supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I de-PRODded this, I alreay indicated a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC, so I am a bit surprised to find this at AfD. If something is irredeemably promotional, it should be speedily deleted (CSD#G11). Obviously, this is not a G11, so the article needs cleanup, not an AfD. I have already pared down the fluff a bit. The best thing would probably be to stubify the thing and then re-expand from there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i'm not surprised. there is a clear drift of delete at all costs, no matter of how nonsensical. they have no shame; they will not collaborate. "needs a rewrite, so delete," lol Duckduckstop (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? I have contributed much more content to Wikipedia than I have proposed for deletion, so if you have some chip on your shoulder don't come passive aggressively insulting me about it. Thanks to everyone else who has contributed by stripping the article of promotional content. Citobun (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see you at wikimania; there i will tell you who i am. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie and the Bhoys[edit]

Charlie and the Bhoys (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 music group. Brief mentions are made in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 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. Article should be cleaned up, but plenty of evidence of notability was found. Shii (tock) 07:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Grundmann[edit]

Reiner Grundmann (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)

Notability not established, issues have been pointed out back in 2014 September on talk page, poor citing, most to blog posts from person and to his own publications, and often cites which do not conform to Wikipedia standards. prokaryotes (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, prune and improve. Professor in Nottingham with publications in the German National Library (I added that), notable enough I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there is some level of notability, looking at some unsourced content and a look at media appearance, but i could go there and delete half of the page or more(when removing listing of pubs), based on above issues. Thus, my impression is that the notability is over hyped, especially if you consider some of his involvement with his input about Climategate. prokaryotes (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you posted on my talk page Gerda Arendt (talk), i answer you here, please keep the discussion here. Another point i noticed, the article wrongly states "He was President (2009–10) of the Sociology and Social Policy Section of the British Science Association." Ofc, this claim is unsourced as most content on this article, a google search also does not show any validation. Then you can go to the criteria for listing academics, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) I do not see how Grundmann fits in here. Unless there are substantial updates, the person as it is, is not notable. prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what sort of google you use, but mine didn't have any problem to confirm his contribution to the British Science festival and his presidency with the sociology section of the BSA. Serten 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Having publications in the German National Library is not significant. The catalogue all publication in Germany - I even found one of my technical reports from the 1990s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience t 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that i have read now two papers from him, but cannot judge him at this point. However, i don't think his work is that important, not the best, not extensive enough. Additionally, he doesn't seem to bother with pointing out errors of the science he quotes, he just quotes mainstream facts and compares both sides, and doesn't seem to be aware of all the science - he just skips a lot. But he might become notable in the future, i.e. in the case his papers gain traction and are judged by notable reviews in a peer-reviewed process or the related media. Thus, for now i suggest if required his work could be mentioned on related articles.prokaryotes (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He writes papers and stuff, which is what all academics do. I don't see that he passes even the extremely low bar of WP:PROF, much less real-world notability. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As Boris points out, he doesn't seem to meet PROF. In addition, the article is mostly original synthesis based on his publications. The few third-party sources that exist in the article don't speak to his importance or significance; take them out and there's almost nothing left (a book review, an interview on a blog) and even less would be appropriate for a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Guettarda says: there is a lack of reliable sources speaking to his notability. Aside, perhaps, from his trying to puff up "climategate", which does suggest some kind of agenda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. First the prokaryotes afD contains some offensive wording. I am far from being a denier, neither is any sockpuppetry allegation appropriate here or elsewhere. Grundmann's review of the Oreskes Merchants of doubt was not done at twitter, but with BioSocieties - a Palgrave Macmillan Journal and got a doi:10.1057/biosoc.2013.15 btw ;) and is the most scientific review of that opus magnum. Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT respectively Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE HIM of both an author and his works is no base for an afd. Writing about climategate and its effects, as Grundmann did (doi 10.1002/wcc.166), is scholarschip. The agenda is yours.
* I might have made the error to base the noteability on the German rules - a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham, contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and (Worldcat providing 355 entries is a WP:SNOW case in the deWP with her much stricter rules. That said, I have inserted three reviews of three books and editions of Grundmann's, two in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, one in the New Left Review to get rid of the drive-by-tagging. A simple google research would have easened that task as well for prokaryotes.
* Prokaryotes accusations about the section Reiner_Grundmann#Peer_review_and_climate_change are being far from accurate and accusing me to carefully avoid his stance on climate is a sort of fairy tale. Either have the cake or eat it. Grundmann is mentioned as a coathor of the The Hartwell Paper (clear indication of a political cloud far from the denial crowd) and as an author of prestigeous books and studies comparing the political dealings with Ozone depletion and climate change and dealt as well with Climategate and its political effects. If you don't like the findings, no reason for an AfD, as said. I point out Grundmann's stance on Hans von Storch's science blog Klimazwiebel as well and refer to a controversy in the peer reviewed literature using various scientific entries. Finally just to quote the Nottingham University website: [nottingham.ac.uk/Sociology/People/reiner.grundmann Reiner Grundmann joined the University of Nottingham in September 2012 as Professor in Science and Technology Studies from Aston University where he was heading the Sociology department over many years. Reiner ... first degree in Sociology from the Free University in Berlin ... PhD in Political and Social Sciences ... European University Institute, Florence ...obtained a German Habilitation (Comment: full regalia for german tenure) from Bielefeld University. Before moving to the UK he was researcher at the Wissenschaftszentrum in Berlin (Germany) and at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (Cologne, Germany).]
* That said, the AfD is sort of contentious. WP:SNOW in combination with Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT respectively Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE HIM. Serten 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disclosure, last March Serten filed an successful AfD on my article about the scientific consensus on climate change, over at the German wikipedia, and the page was deleted. Because i tried to explain the issues with the Grundmann article to Serten on the article talk page already in detail, i have nothing else to add, unless someone wants more links or a translation etc. prokaryotes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats sorta wrong. I filed a successfull AfD in the deWP on Prokaryotes Bablefish translation of Scientific opinion on climate change. Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham
PROF asks for more than this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)"
contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association
PROF asks for more than this: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and Worldcat providing 355 entries
Then it shouldn't be difficult meet this requirement of PROF: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. But what we need are reliable secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based larger parts of the articles on peer reviewed publications and scientific text books - that means, those books and entrys already went through independent checking and reviews. You seem to tell the audience here, that a peer reviewed contribution is same level as a blog entry. Thats sort of contentious again. That said, I have added various English reviews in scientific journals, some german and others are yet to come. Serten 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No,I didn't say anything like "a peer reviewed contribution is [the] same level as a blog entry". Sorry, that's simply untrue.

We can't use Grundmann's publications to discuss the significance of Grundmann's publications. That shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp. Nor can we count Grundmann's publications and use that tally to assert that made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. His works are not independent sources. They're the opposite of independent. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I inserted some reviews, including Süddeutsche Zeitung / Perlentaucher (new scientific field, one of the essentials here), some politics and social science portals reviews in German and French, and btw I like the quotes Routledge was allowed to start Transnational environmental policy with: Take Gaia Guru Jim Lovelock stating This readable book is the best treatment of the subject published so far and Noble Prize Laureate Frank Sherwood Rowland with Stimulating and thought-provoking. The quoted WP_Prof requirements are no must, but shalls, but see no reason for doubt against notability. You? Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC) I am OK with the request for reviews, it gets however contentious again, if major points from Grundmanns science books and peer reviewed papers are being tagged as needing third party confirmations. An article about a scholar, needs third party reviews proving that he or she may be noteable. It doesnt need third party sources to confirm that he has written certain stuff. Thats being based and depicted on his work, books and papers. (added by Serten)
  • Keep but trim. Unquestionably notable. Author of major academic works published by some of the very most important academic publishers. His Transnational environmental policy reconstructing ozone (Routledge) is in 580 libraries a/c WorldCat [35]; Marxism and ecology published by OUP is in 296 libraries; The power of scientific knowledge : from research to public policy(Cambridge Univ. Press) is in 231. nAny author with the record is notable by WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR> I can see no basis at all for the deletion arguments . "what all academic do"-- very few indeed have written books published by both OUP and CUP; "climategate" -- irrelevant. "His work is not the best" -- we do not make that judgment, the academic publishers do--the multiple very high level reviews always obtained by referees for publishers like CUP and OUP have much better judgment than we do in such matters "RS" If you want to fulfill the GNG, the RSs are the book reviews, but WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, on the basis that judgments of notability within the academic world is the standard of academic notability. The PROf statements for named chair or the like are just shortcuts for the most obvious cases.--the basic standard is acceptance by those in the field as an authority, and the basic proof for this is publications. Furthermore, with the reviews, it meets WP:AUTHOR.
The only cases where a person with this level of an academic record have ever been deleted here for lack of notability have been a very few times for people whose views on some controversial subject were unpopular at WP, and such deletions do us no credit. Ivery much hope that this sort of prejudice is not the motive here.
What is however true is the nominator's statement that the article is much too full of the subjects opinions, and not a npov description of his career. I tried to fix some of this in 2014, but the fluff is back again, re-added by Serten. --and indeed what I did then was incomplete--much more cutting is needed That contributor is doing the article and WP no service by restoring such material. Making an article into a promotional for the authors views is likely to attract negative attention. If it can not be fixed, and remain fixed, I will myself bring a third afd as promotional to apply WP:TNT and have it rewritten in a more proper way. Or even G11, as promotional and impossible to fix by normal editing. I would feel much better about this if that editor would promise to stay away from the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made some good points, also this TNT thingy sounds interesting. And because the article could be helpful to state the person's views more clearly, which would be a service to every interested reader, and i imagine there are many who wonder who is this guy who criticises Oreskes, the IPCC, climate scientists and equals them with deniers. prokaryotes (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a diametrically opposite view regarding your comments about less-than-noble motives. If someone really wanted to "get" an academic that they disagreed with, one of the best ways would be to have a Wikipedia article about them where it could be filled with criticism, or the subject of never-ending battles over one thing or another. I certainly wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my closest and most valued colleagues. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate - DGG checked notability. Prokaryotes had been made aware of Reiners h-index (16 since 2010), he didn't care. The AfD has got a sort of interesting timing, as I was longer absent from the enWP recently, the article itself has not been touched by anyone involved since December 2014. Nothing happened since. I will accept now the reduction the list of peer reviewed papers and book chapters as foreseen by DGG. Far from anything WP:TNT is being called for.
@Short Brigade Harvester Boris The only climate related conflicts I registered is a) the one with Lever Tracy, and b) the one about climategate and its moral impact. Both have been described from the very start. The most interesting conflict he's been in is the one in the New left and a recent Springer volume by PRC scholars about the Marx-and-ecology: Grundmanns interpretation of mastery of nature by man is of interest, globally, as being shown now with the works of scholars from PRC and (South...) Korea.
I am sort of annoyed about the COI allegation. A German sociologist writing about ClimateChange/Ozone and or doing a review of Oreskes Merchands of doubts in a sociology journal puts them into perspective. He is far from the anglo quasireligious infights in that realm. Thats one of the reasons his work was praised as groundbreaking. Serten 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where the nature of his views is relevant one way or the other to establishing his WP:notability.
As for your comment on his h index, a value of 16 is completely unremarkable in most fields I'm familiar with (especially if it is the inflated Google Scholar h index rather than the Web of Science one). If sociologists tend to publish far less than the physical sciences, maybe h=16 would argue in favor of notability. DGG, can you comment on this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryotes made a lot of comments on his views. That should not be an issue here. H-index: pre 2010 is 21. It seems to be be feasible to have a WP entry with less, so may be its again dependend on his views. Serten 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: - I'm curious about the significance of the fact that his book Transnational environmental policy reconstructing ozone is held by 580 libraries if, according to Google Scholar, it has only been cited 50 times (and given the way Google Scholar inflates citations, the real number is probably lower). These aren't all physical copies (I clicked on a few to check and they are electronic copies) and I know that publishers offer huge bundles of older e-books to libraries. Should we really be putting weight on numbers of copies held by libraries if a lot of those copies are virtual? Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the difference between the social sciences/humanities and sciences. Citations of books and mainly by other books, and come to a much lower number than citations of articles. In the sciences, it is routine doe an article to cite every possible article that relates to the subject in a substantial way, and most of them are just listed, not discussed. In the social sciences, it is normal for a book to cite only the particular other books that the author wishes to specifically discuss. The most exact way of evaluating holdings of books is in contrast to other books in the subject--this is a little complicated, and I defer this--its more of a research project than I think warranted in the present case.
I do not base my judgment of notability as an author on this particular book; it is published by Routledge, which is a good but not absolutely first rate publisher. If he had published nothing else, I might not be arguing for notability at all. I base it on the books published by CUP and OUP , which are in another league altogether, several levels up. Traditionally in most fields the two highest quality English language academic publishers-- or 3, if you add PrincetonUP; in this particular field, I'd also add ChicagoUP. I would certainly maintain that any academic book published by them is notable, and any author publishing two books by these presses is notable, and no further analysis is necessary for notability any more than further analysis is necessary for a major prize. I can enlarge on this in another place--the WP standards for notability of books is worth some further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thnxs DGG. Important is as well that book reviews (as the one on merchants of doubt) ar much more important in social sciences but do not add to most indexes. This sort of review is based on invitations by the journal, so its a one to one issue as well. I might add as well that Grundmann's Work as a social scientist has passed several language and cultural barriers. DGG has mentioned prestigous UK publishers, but anything with Suhrkamp_Verlag#Academic_authors or Velbrück can be considered as main contribution in the field, Campus Verlag is like routledge, OK but another league. The article contains now some recent schlolarly entries from China about the marx/ecology issue with Reiner Grundmann in the title. Serten 10:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks DGG. For clarity can you explain in what specific way these books satisfy WP's formal BLP notability guidelines, since that's what we should be concerned with here? (The real problem is the reprehensible laxness of our BLP notability criteria, but that's not something we can settle in this venue.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete all but 2-3 sentences Almost all of this article was created without consideration of Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. I acknowledge the effort but Wikipedia does not publish content in this way and this article is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that the papers written by the subject of the article are cited as sources of his work, when instead Wikipedia reports what other people have said about the subjects of articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:SELFPUB is useable on BoD and twitter, for WP:JDL reasons its being applied on books which are noteable on their own right. In so far we have stuff for a large article on person and work or about 5 Grundmann related articles. Of cause, any article about a scholar refers to and may use their published works as a source. Take Ulrich Beck (OK) or the entry on Giddens (much more selfquote) and compare it to the poorly sourced Naomi Oreskes. The AfD triggered some improvement on the Grundmann article, it contains now a large variety of third party reviews and references and the tagged statements are either sourced, properly reworded or deleted. Serten 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds User_talk:Prokaryotes#Grundmann won't go on for with that AfD. I did a sloppy version in the deWP, gained at once interest from other authors to expand it. WP:Snow for any AfD as well there. I ask to close the discussion here. Serten 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In my opinion he doesn't pass [[WP:PROF]. And I doubt that the presentation is neutral, especially since the main author seems to use him to support his clear agenda to raise doubt in a lot of quite settled scientific fields, especially climate change. Just look at Naomi Oreskes: With Merchants of Doubt they have presented a well-respected work about climate change denial, which has been cited more than 800 times since publication in 2010. And now Serten uses Grundmann's single opinion (the Heartland Institute is criticised by Oreskes, so that doesn't count) to fully rebut Merchants of Doubt, of course without mentioning all the scientific praise for the book. If you takes this, the missing of elemental notability standards and add the POV in the Grundmann article, the solution can only be the deletion of the article. --84.170.141.233 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grundmann did actual research comparing Ozone and climate policies, praised by the Noble prize winner (chemistry) in question. Oreske blames Seitz and Singer for whatever evil in a popular book. Two retreated phycisists killed Kyoto? Hilarious. If youre interested in actual science and policy interaction, read STS studies. Grundmann is one of the scholars in the field with international renown. WP:JDL again. Serten 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't throw smoke grenades. Oreskes best publication was cited much better than all of Grundmann's publications together (!). And Merchants of Doubt alone has more than halve of the cites Grundmann got in his total scientific life. But thank you for showing that you have a political agenda, which is to reject Oreskes work as unscientific. And thats the POV the Grundmann article is made of. Which is why it should be deleted. 84.170.142.6 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TBK and WP:BK are both applicable, for all Grundmann books with one or two translations. Oreskes wrote a popular bestseller about the US specific shenanigins of Seitz and Singer in the climate/ozone/etc wars. Grundmann took years (and his habilitation) to conclude his studies about Transnational Environmental Policy (which led e.g. to a case study in The Power of Scientific Knowledge and is a base of Experts and Power of Expertise). That said, its not easy to compare, but I wonder, why no one asks for third party sources and scientific reviews for the Oreske article. It should be rather easy to add and quote them, it took me not much time to add some more to the Grundmann article (just found another STS review of Oreskes by Brian Wynne). The books mentioned above have full regalia to be noteable on their own. I wonder as well why someone researching the very topic we are using and displaying in wikipedia - knowledge - in standard textbooks as the Routledge Critical Concepts series could ever be thought of being deleted. Serten 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Grundmann is unquestionably notable. Per comments above, article could be trimmed & improved. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is now an ANI discussion involving the page creator, in part related to this AfD and other pages related to Grundmann edits. The user added to various articles mentions of Grundmann and cites to his work, i.e. four times at Ozone depletion and climate change. prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't understand what's going on. In JSTOR I found two reviews of books he's written/edited, he's mentioned/cited in at least a dozen articles that JSTOR pulled up, and I find citations and references all over Google Books as well, including [36], [37], [38], [39]. In other words, that should be an easy keep. Now, the article is terrible. Sorry Serten, but it is. The subject, however, is notable. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the outstanding analysis by DGG, who has shown for many years that he knows what he is talking about here on such matters. That being said, Serten should step aside from editing this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal: I work on the German entry for Grundmann now. I won't edit on the enWP article for two months after the afd is closed. If I have an issue or suggestion, I will use the talk page. Serten 02:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaf markup language[edit]

Swaf markup language (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)

One-man project; no sources cited, and none that I could find in quick web search, to establish WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also nominating the duplicate (now redirect) Swaf. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring AfD tag and tentative delete for no good sources (of the markup language) found. I do see other potentially notable uses of "swaf" as acronyms or names. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any reliable sources for this. Not notable enough to include as its own page. Tinton5 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Louhivuori[edit]

Mikko Louhivuori (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 priest, somehow connected to Near Eastern archaeology. Maybe we should redirect it to Near Eastern archaeology. Hajme 09:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So many unreliable souces are present on web; some are in non-English. It's not clear whether they mention the same person or different persons with the same name.--C E (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- The question is whether he qualifies as an academic. I am afraid that I am doubtful as to whether he does. A few dissertations is certainly not enough. Apart from that he appears to have published a handful of articles. A redirect to his subject is unhelpful to users, as he has studied spcific aspect of it. Brill and Continuum are academic publishers. If he looked as if he had produced one or more entire books, I would probably have voted to keep, but I do not think he has crossed the threshold of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 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 09:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with the "weak" being mainly that I have no confidence in finding appropriate sources. However, of the sources listed, most are his own writings, and I don't see anything that would raise him to wp:academic levels. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The American Schools of Oriental Research is an online newsletter of Near Eastern archaeology, he can be sourced to it for being mentioned as a working archaeologist [40] And to other archaeological websites as well [[41]]. Plus he does have a WP page in Finnish [42], and a substantial publication record. Writing a better article would require reading sources in Finnish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 8 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) 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.M.Gregory, I looked at your links and the FI Wikipedia page (which only sources to his own writings, some of which are unpublished theses). I don't think anyone has questioned whether the person exists, just whether the person is notable. The only links are to his own work, and mentions. He fails at WP:ACADEMIC, and also fails for general notability. I appreciate that you work hard to save articles, but I still don't think this one passes muster. LaMona (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still weak delete -- Even after looking at Finnish WP (a language that I do not understand), I do not think he has done or published enough to be notable. Certainly he has published a few articles and perhaps a couple of theological works, but no way doies that lift him to the level of WP:ACADEMIC. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 22:47, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:A7. The article also appears to have been created as part of evading a block.. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MemeSpeak[edit]

MemeSpeak (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)

Subject of the article fails WP:ORG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:28, 9 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) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Brewton[edit]

Pete Brewton (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 WP:BLP with no reliable independent sources (bad idea), discussing a conspiracy theorist. I find his theories ideologically consonant, but I don't see any evidence that his work is considered significant by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the article's claim, there is no evidence that his book was a best seller or notable outside the usual conspiracy websites. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:PROF. - Location (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. E.M.Gregory has done a good job finding sources that show mainstream coverage. - Location (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it meets notability requirements for a short article. I was able to find two articles in the New York Times that mention Brewton. He appeared on TV with Bill Moyers in 1991, and is mentioned in a 1990 article on the CIA. He is identified as a reporter for the Houston Post who has been investigating the savings and loan scandal. The fact that the Post was purchased by the Houston Chronicle in 1995 may mean that some of Brewton's journalistic work remains offline, if the Chronicle didn't digitize the archives they acquired from the Post. Roches (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think those mentions might be what are considered "trivial". There are also similar blurbs in the early 1990s about his coverage of the S&L crisis in the LA Times, Mother Jones, and Newsweek. I guess the question is whether or not these mentions are enough to build a stand-alone article via WP:AUTHOR or whether there should be a redirect to some part of Savings and loan crisis. - Location (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need something a bit more hefty than what Roches discovered to pass the WP:FRIND-threshold, in my opinion. jps (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing now. You have to search older sources, that book was a big deal at the time. But WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In ~1990 there was an entire literature centered on this book. I've sourced the article with things that come to the top of Proquest Newspaper searches; am not spending the time to do it up in detail. But I have edited the page as it existed a little, removing some unsourced material. I am not persuaded that it qualifies as WP:FRIND. Certainly, columnists tend to like Brewton's investigative newspaper series/book or not depending on whether they are part of America's right or left wing. But quite a number of mainstream newspaper such as The Salt Lake Tribune [43] and the Journal Star (Peoria) [44] cite Brewton and his book.series on fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    added faculty page as a source. I suspect that the journalism awards listed there are all real and can be sourced, at least, I certainly stumbled into 2 awards without going past the first page of a search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, IMO. That page is self-sourced and does not establish who the awards are from or for what. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any reason to doubt the authenticity of the claims, especially since Texas Tech is the publisher. I don't have the same access to searching sources as E.M.Gregory, however, I did find confirmation of the PEN Center USA award here. Unrelated, but another post from Texas Tech here. - Location (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, [[User:Location. Added the PEN prize to the page. It is pretty routine to link the faculty page to an academic's WP bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 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. Notability has been proven although it does need some cleaning, The Delete !vote makes no sense so discounting that here, Cheers (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tetuila[edit]

Tony Tetuila (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 Does not meet Wikipedia Guidelines there is No Evidence of Notability on this Article --Samat lib (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fixed the nom. ansh666 09:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's pretty well known in Nigeria - just do a search in news or books. Meets several criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. The article should be expanded not deleted. -- haminoon (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Recommendation. I recommend the speedy close of this discussion in good faith by any patrolling admin as it serve no other purpose than to waste the precious time of other editors. Moreover, the subject notability had been established by the multiple reliable sources provided above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this very Article need a total Clean up ,

adding more reliable multiple sources on the Article main page to prove is Notability , Secondly if this problem is not fixed fast * Delete Kokobenin (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs cleanup, but they are notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 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 Keep. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockette Morton[edit]

Rockette Morton (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 does not meet Wikipedia Guidelines for Notability

Sorry there is No Evidence of Notability on this Article references ....--Samat lib (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes it does. Whether it should be a standalone article or be merged into the Magic Band is debateable, but there's no way this should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I fixed the nom page. ansh666 09:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important member of important band.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He recorded/performed with Captain Beefheart & The Magic Band as well as Mallard (band), which should warrant a stand alone article per WP:BAND "have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." He has released at least one solo album. The Magic Band continues to perform internationally, without Beefheart (who died several years ago) and has a wide Facebook following. Both Mallard and the Magic Band have performed internationally. References available include the book "LUNAR NOTES: Zoot Horn Rollo's Captain Beefheart Experience", which contains information about Mark Boston aka Rockette Morton. There is also listed an interview/article in Stomp & Stammer magazine. He has been performing and recording since the 1960s. I just found another interview here, which I can add to the article later. He is mentioned in this book about the album Trout Mask Replica. Quick Google Books search turns up other references, most of which are in connection to Beefheart, but given the connection with Mallard, I think it warrants a stand alone article. Definitely not a delete. --Gaff (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep True, his notability is mostly associated with Beefheart, but that was SO notable and well-studied (both Zoot & Drumbo wrote full-length books about the Magic Band era) that he really does pass our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems that we are missing some topic on this article , if i may ask where are the independent relieble sources on this Article , secondly this Article need a clear citation about the topic in general. SO if the problem can not be fixed then *Delete Kokobenin (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reply to wp:spa account. I mentioned the sources in my keep !vote above.--Gaff (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy is a household name, at least in the households I frequent. -- haminoon (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up and properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: some sources, not quite enough to meet WP:BASIC, but the subject has played a major role in a couple major albums, such as Trout Mask Replica. Yes, notability is not inherited nor is significance a primary factor in notability, but if the subject has significance, then there should be more leniency per WP:IAR as the subject is most likely worthy of notice. Esquivalience t 03:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 USC Trojans football team[edit]

2016 USC Trojans football team (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)

Premature creation of college football team season article for 2016 college football season. Based on WP:CRYSTAL and previous AfD precedents regarding future sports seasons, we do not create future season articles before the current season is over. This article is premature by eight months or more per WP:TOOSOON, and there is no way to properly source it per WP:RS 16 months before the 2016 season starts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON]. Can be recreated around this time next year. ansh666 09:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as argued above. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. Premature and lacks substantive content. Recognized practice is to create future season article only after the prior season has ended. Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per standard operating procedure. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is too soon. No problem with redirect to USC Trojans football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (ed. note; I give up; the bureaucracy wins) precedents not withstanding, I think there's another way to look at this. Ok, as formatted the page is effectively empty. It's an obvious CRYSTAL case. But there's one glaring exception. The recruiting class. There are a number of commits, and the school's class is apparently ranked 11th nationally. There is something available to write about here, and Google news reports more than 18,000 articles related to this recruiting class [45]. So, ditch the current formatting of the article, focus on developing the article about what is already known about the team. There's plenty enough for that, and for it to be extremely well sourced. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recruiting classes do create a lot of buzz in the blogs, but they are not a part of the team until the team actually exists. If there are any notable recruits, then those recruits would deserve a page. If not that, then possibly the high school or college (transfers) where they are coming from. And if the recruiting class itself for some reason becomes notable then we can compare it to WP:GNG. Talking about the recruiting class is a good argument, but not strong enough for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I got to laugh. There's enormous quantities of news articles about high profile programs and their recruiting classes. In this specific case, I found 18 THOUSAND news articles about it. You can't dismiss that as being from "blogs". Hell, one program created buzz when they recruited someone out of 8th grade. This stuff is major, major stuff in the news and directly relates to the programs recruiting them. But, for bureaucratic...rather than encyclopedic reasons..(not directing this at you Paul in particular)..we can't have an article about. Utter <facepalm> if I ever saw one. Might as well snow-close this AfD under the heading "Napoleon was right" ("the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy). One question, since I couldn't find it, where is it written in law around here that an article about this team (which WILL exist...there's nothing crystal ball about that) can't exist for another eight months? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't laugh. Show the sources you found and we will consider them. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. As of now, I do not doubt that there are thousands of entries on the internet about the class. I question that they are from both reliable and third party sources. As for the question when a subject achieves notability to deserve an article, see WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been here long enough to know about WP:N, as I haven't hit 50,000 edits yet and can't even be trusted to edit templates. So, you'll have to forgive me for being so clueless ;) I joke, but anyway... As to sources; I already linked to the Google news search showing more than 18,000 articles relating to this class. Even if only 1% of those qualify under your criteria, that's still 180 articles supporting an article about this future team. There's oodles of information to work with here. But, I guarantee that even if I did develop this article with all that material it would be deleted anyway, for purely bureaucratic reasons. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of edits has no bearing on the weight of the argument being made. I don't care if anyone has zero edits--if they have an opinion, they get to express it. And they may be right. But what I don't see are three or four specific references that you believe are good examples to showcase the notability of the subject. The "news" link above is a good start, but the first few that I read through either were not bona fide news sources (i.e. fan blogs), not third party (i.e. USC Football), or not about the 2016 USC program (they happened to have "USC" and "2016" in the article). Give us specific examples. Like this.
  • Thanks for posting. Each of those to me do not qualify. Bleacher Reports and isportsweb.com are considered by many to not qualify as reliable sources--at least for the purposes of determining notability. Because of the open-source nature of their editing and information coupled with the distinct lack of peer review, the websites in question are normally not considered for determining notability. Naturally, you can argue that point (for example, if Lou Holtz were to write such an article it would have more weight). The other sites you provided (Yahoo Sports and ESPN) certainly qualify as reliable third party sources, but what you provide is simply a table and not an article. Such a table would be suitable for including supplemental data as a reference in this article or for "College Football Recruiting Class of 2016" (covering all teams), but it does not establish notability for this particular topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples you provided are the sort of Bleacher Report pieces and Rivals rankings that exist for every major team's future recruiting classes. If those types of pieces were enough, sports fans would be free to create articles 2 or maybe even 3 years in advance for every major college team. Those articles would be completely devoid of meaningful information, and would consist of nothing more than repetition of subjective opinions and predictions by various sources about the potential future value of high school football players who have not yet even signed binding commitments to attend the university in question. You can call it "bureaucracy", but I consider the current practice to be sound management developed based on the consensus of editors who routinely edit and develop college sports articles. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <shaking my head> Ah, Wikipedia, what have ye become? Enormous amounts of press can be generated about something, yet for bureaucratic reasons here we can't talk about them. Wikipedia, the world's resource for free knowledge, can't report on known facts and realities. Commits? They don't exist. National rankings of an incoming class, even in the top 10? Nope, not notable. ESPN isn't a reliable source, bleacherreport.com (a top 100 site in the U.S.) discusses the class and that's not acceptable, etc. Nah, nothing's acceptable. At least, not until Wikipedia declares, by a date which apparently isn't written into policy/guideline anywhere, that we can't create an article about it. Even with tons of press about this class, we can't write about it because of an arbitrary, unwritten date at some time in the future. This is nuts. Absolutely nuts. You guys are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Go ahead and delete. The bureaucracy has won. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think you are mis-understanding. ESPN is a reliable source, it's just that the article you provided does not speak to the notability of the subject. And that's just my opinion. As to Bleacherreport, that's not a peer-reviewed reliable source no matter how many articles they print so it doesn't qualify for establishing notability. Again, that's my opinion. As for "enormous amounts of press" I just haven't seen it in reliable third party sources. But even then, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source per WP:NOTNEWS. Have you tried Wikinews or another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment you're welcome to change your position for any reason you choose. I hope that you would not simply because we disagree on a subject. It's not about winning or losing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. Look, the reality is the bureaucracy isn't going to allow this article, despite ample, reliable sources. So many of you are saying "too soon". Yet, not a single one of you has been able to point to any policy that says this article can't exist until xyz date. I wish you could see yourselves in the mirror. But, alas. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU! You've just proved my point about bureaucracy. Even if we had 1,000,000 articles from every news outlet in the world the bureaucracy wouldn't allow an article about this team until we reach some arbitrary date. We even have verifiable information regarding a portion of their schedule [46] (but the bureaucracy will probably cry WP:PRIMARY). But no, can't have an article. News keeps rolling in about their incoming class [47], and we can't discuss it here because of an arbitrary date. Yahoo! can have a list of their recruiting class [48], but not us. Oh no! It's too EARLY! The program lands fifth ranked linebacker in the country, but oh no! We have to wait, because that's not notable. Source after source after source after source is discussing this team and its upcoming members, but the bureaucracy here stands in the way. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've complained that there aren't any guidelines that support the position of deletion, I point them out, and you then complain about too many guidelines. Which is it? Not enough or too many? And we don't have a million articles from every news outlet in the world. You have shown, in fact, none that meet the notability, reliable source, and third party standards. Now your comments are starting to become disruptive in nature. And finally, no one is saying it can't be discussed here. HERE is exactly the place to discuss it. "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" is not a valid argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for a place in policy dictating that the article can't exist until a xyz date. What I got was a wall of links to essays, guidelines and policies...none of which indicate that an article about this team can not exist now. So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet. I'm waiting. Maybe I'll have to wait until the arbitrary date (whatever it is; no one seems to know) is passed :) You claim that none of the links I have provided pass established standards. Yet, I've linked to plenty of news sources from third party sources that are reliable sources of news. But, I guess Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sports Illustrated and Bleacher Report are not reliable. If it's "too soon" then pray tell why we have an article about Super Bowl LII, which will occur two years after the season article you're going to delete will begin? Why do we have an article about 2028 Summer Olympics, which is 13 years in the future? Then there's 2023 Cricket World Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup and more. We're discussing a season that begins training less than 12 months from now...less than one year. We know who the coach is contracted to be, we know where the home games are to be played, we know who is on the incoming class and we know a portion of the schedule that is to be played...all of it verifiable by reliable, third party sources. Lastly, if you seriously think I'm being disruptive for voicing an opinion, then as an administrator you should be well aware of how to handle that through normal dispute resolution channels. I encourage you to attack my opinion, rather than try to undermine my stance by accusing me of being disruptive. If voicing an opinion and attempting to show why the prevailing opinion among those here is wrong counts as disruptive, then I am extremely proud to be labeled as disruptive. For that matter, so should any Wikipedian. If noting multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts as "Liar liar pants on fire" then I'll gladly claim it as a badge of honor. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yahoo Sports, ESPN, and Sports Illustrated are widely considered reliable sources. You haven't provided any articles from those sources that establish notability of the subject in question. Bleacher Report is normally considered not to be a reliable source. If you disagree that it should be reliable, you can state reasons why you think so (but you haven't). I can't really speak to why the future articles you mention are in Wikipedia, but WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing on this discussion. As to what action I should take as an administrator--the answer is "nothing" because I'm involved. At first I thought you were new to Wikipedia because of the type of statements you were making, but now I see you've been actively editing as far back as 2007. You should know by now that just saying you've posted "multiple, reliable, third party sources that can be used to verify and source an article counts" is not the same thing as actually having done so. If you want to seriously discuss the merits of the issue at hand I'm certainly open to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the way you said "So, as of this writing, there is still no presentation that this article can not exist because of some arbitrary date not having been reached yet" let me refer you to the aforementioned WP:TOOSOON among the list of others provided throughout this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> I fail to see the point of this discussion. I cite sources, you say ESPN/SI/BR/YS are unreliable. I cite precedent with plenty of other articles pertaining to things future, and you discredit them as otherstuff. I ask for where this is codified in policy/guideline, and you reference me to a wall of policies/guidelines/essays, none of which address the specific point. I voice an opinion, and you accuse me of being disruptive. *shrug* Nothing I say will sway you. Further debate is useless. You've already won this debate, and this article will be deleted. I'd hoped to be able to sway opinion here, but that seems impossible. So, I already struck my vote. I'm not sure what you expect of me, or what will make you happy. If saying you're right and I'm wrong is the only way forward in this, I'm sorry but you'll just have to be disappointed. I'm exiting this conversation as useless. The mic is yours for repartee. I don't care. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN, SI, and YS are reliable sources and I have maintained that throughout the discussion. It is Bleacher Reports that I believe does not qualify. The rest of your martyr cry is not a valid argument for keeping or deleting an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one year ahead is more than enough, there isn't solid information to include further out. A list of the members of the recruiting class isn't enough, and by the way they may not all make it to campus as expected. This isn't a recruiting site, so I don't think it is particularly important that users can come to Wikipedia and get their recruiting information. Scout, Rivals, ESPN, 247, etc are there for that. Rikster2 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the only real information that could be in the article at this point is recruiting, could that information be rolled into the main USC Football article? We don't know the coaches, players that will be on the team or schedule yet, but I think recruiting is well covered enough to warrant mention somewhere. Chuy1530 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Try again in a year. Or at least after the 2015 season ends. Page is nothing more than a boiler plate, so I see no reason to bother moving to draft/user space. ― Padenton|✉   05:32, 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 keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America1000 22:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Richmond History Center[edit]

Valentine Richmond History Center (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)

Though I may suggest toning down the non-neutral notification, I agree with @Mike Cline:'s comments here. Most of the article is unsourced original research. The only sources provided are primary sources from the organization's website. There is no indication of notability provided by secondary sources, but even if they were notable, we would need to delete everything not cited to a reliable secondary source, meaning the entire page.

As Wikipedians we have a shared interest with the article-subject in history and a desire to show our support, however we should not abuse our role as Wikipedian for this purpose. Promotion and notability are not issues exclusive to commercial organizations and many topics like open-source or academics get unreasonable special treatment due to their appeal to our editor demographic.

CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC) CorporateM (Talk) 09:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google indicates that this seems to be a legitimate, longstanding, notable museum. See HERE for one article from a reliable source, and HERE for another. This place has been around for a hundred years, for pete's sake. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, but there doesn't seem to be good justification for deleting it on the basis of notability. Lou Sander (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are dozens of reliable sources to use for cleaning the article up:[49]--Cúchullain t/c 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just a directory listing. This is a local source acceptable for RS, but needs to be supplemented with at least one strong national source to qualify for notability. Google News hits do not verify notability; at a glance most of those just look like articles where the museum is mentioned. However, even if they are notable, the deletion rationale did not require the absence of notability to warrant deletion; since nothing in the current article has a strong secondary source, all of the page's current content needs to be deleted. The concept of incremental improvement is not sensible when practically speaking any disinterested editor that takes an interest is better off starting from scratch rather than from a repost of the company's website. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is a strong national source required to qualify this museum for notability? It is primarily a regional institution. Lou Sander (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article clearly demonstrates notability NOW, something it had not done for the 8.5 years since its creation. Sometimes articles subject to WP:CORP just need a little prodding to bring them up to standard. Thanks to CorporateM for taking this on. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page may still not qualify for WP:CORP, given that many of the sources are primary, are actually about the founder, only briefly mention the museum, or in some cases are blatant personal blogs (I removed those) or local tourism promotions. In other cases[50][51] the sources are reliable, but I cannot find "Valentine" mentioned anywhere in the source. I have a hard time swallowing this personal blog as a reliable source, when it calls beef juice a "tried-and-true [remedy]" that "cured Valentine’s wife, or at least appeared to". I'm no doctor like @Doc James:, but I'm pretty sure squeezing meat doesn't actually cure ailments.
This is a good example of why we need stronger sources to write a neutral article. This guy literally squeezed the juice out of raw meat and sold it as a "health tonic" with dubious health claims and through this product made the money that was used to purchase most of the museum's main attractions. We made it sound glorious using weak sources, when in actuality these exhibits were purchased by selling fake medicine. I shutter to think what sanitation and disease issues surrounded selling meat juice in the 1800s. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appears it was partly written by the place User:ValentineRHC. The initial trimming has helped. May need some more though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boy! What a slippery slope that might be when we start worrying about where the $$$ actually comes from to finance enterprise!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mike Cline (talk • contribs)
We could also make one or more additional articles about Valentine Meat Juice or Mann Valentine if y'all think that would make the article more streamlined. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's problems are fixable. Deletion is not cleanup.--Cúchullain t/c 15:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There doesn't seem to be any lingering disagreement about notability or sourcing. Based on substantial changes in the last week, the article's notability was established and "lack of third-party references" has been solved. Are there any other arguments? If not, I would suggest that we have consensus to keep. Thoughts? Peace, MPS (talk) 21:17, 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 keep. And 2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) restored. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (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)
2013–14 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009–10 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008–09 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007–08 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006–07 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005–06 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004–05 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003–04 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001–02 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000–01 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999–2000 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998–99 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997–98 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995–96 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994–95 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993–94 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992–93 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991–92 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990–91 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989–90 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988–89 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987–88 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986–87 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985–86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984–85 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983–84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982–83 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981–82 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979–80 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978–79 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977–78 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976–77 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975–76 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974–75 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973–74 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972–73 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971–72 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970–71 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969–70 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968–69 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967–68 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966–67 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1965–66 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1964–65 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1963–64 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962–63 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1961–62 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) that such schedules are outside the scope of Wikipedia I hereby nominate all other articles in Category:United States Saturday morning network television schedules for deletion. Some of the older ones actually do cite a source, but that does not solve the basic problem that these schedules do not provide encyclopedic information and by their very nature violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Huon (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I'm surprised by that other AFD, but it did have low participation (only four editors, including the nom), and now we have an opportunity to correct it. The last time these were under consideration, they were WP:SNOW-kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) with thirteen editors !voting to keep in just the two days it was open, and no support of the nomination. The community has affirmed again and again that these schedules are of historical import to American broadcasting, and that WP:NOTTVGUIDE has no application here because these are not viewer guides to what episodes are airing on what day at what time (which is what an actual "tv guide" is). This is even acknowledged at NOTTVGUIDE, which says that "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." I'll quote most of my comment from that last AFD: "As all of these network series are notable, these are indexes of article topics organized by a defining characteristic—the seasons and programming blocks in which they aired [thus satisfying WP:LISTPURP]. Further, these network schedules are highly notable topics in their own right. Broadcast programming decisions, such as on which day to air a program, what shows lead in and out from a series on the same network, and against which series are a show competing, are a core part of the history of network television and are analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself. Often the very success or failure of a show will hinge upon its time slot; see Friday night death slot, for example..." On the deletion side (here and in the one-off AFD, which will certainly be DRV'd after this one is closed as "keep"), we have nothing more substantive than WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and a WP:VAGUEWAVE to NOTTVGUIDE. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment of at least one participant in the other AFD ("what next, Friday morning schedules?") also makes me think they just weren't familiar with the topic, if they think the time and day focus of these lists is arbitrary and they have no idea why Saturday morning network programming is distinct (and distinctly notable). So much for that "consensus" of four being representative of an informed community judgment... But again, we'll take that up at DRV after this group nom is closed. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and/or merge into the general lists like 1980–81 United States network television schedule. While WP:NOT does caution about schedules for a network as indiscriminate information, comparative schedules like these are actually important for television/entertainment historians, showing which shows ran up against others (NBC's "Must See TV" Thursday Night Block vs FOX's onset with the Simpsons, for example, is where such lists are useful for reference). As Postdls notes, the networks in the US only have a few blocks of time of assured nationwide programming - prime time each day, and Saturday mornings, so these aren't arbitrary. I do agree that sourcing must be better for these, but that's one of those things that I know sourcing exists, its common for networks to publish what their programming blocks are, but it's a matter of legwork to get them all. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and then let's restore the deleted one per Postdlf. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and restore 2002-03 Three vote!s are not a consensus (that should have been at minimum relisted) and looking at what links here links, nobody but the original article creator was notified of the 2002-03 AfD, which I find to be a purposeful attempt to wool-pull interested parties; a mention on WP:TV's talk page should have at least been done. My rationale is per Postdlf's without much changes to their rationale. These mass-noms also must generally have a very strong rationale for deletion to be successful, and the nominator has not proven their case; NOTTVGUIDE is meant to discourage television and radio station articles from being promotional mouthpieces of their schedules, and we have generally excused national schedules from the same standard as they're easily sourced and less susceptible to change. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These do violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and the fact that they are historical doesn't change that. NOTTVGUIDE does say "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable" but these don't seem historically significant. Effectively we're hoarding a pile of old TV guides that really should be thrown in the recycle bin. The arguments for keeping just don't fly. These are just lists and nothing more. There's no evidence that they are "highly notable topics in their own right". They clearly fail to establish that. Nor do they assist in understanding "broadcast programming decisions", because there is no comparison or reference to those decisions. Regarding the previous AfD, the AfD before that was nearly 3 years ago, and consensus can change. While it was a low attendance AfD, that's something that can and does happen. It doesn't mean that the consensus was invalid. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your argument is that there's no informational value to seeing what the content of American broadcast TV was in a given year? That's a surprising claim, though I have a theory (below) as to why you in particular might think that.

      And I don't understand the "these are just lists" comment. We do keep "just lists", and as I noted above, they pass LISTPURP by that analysis without even getting to the "broadcast schedule as notable topic" argument.

      Consensus can change, but it needs to be by an informed judgment, and by a sufficient quorum if a large portion of the community has spoken in the past on these and the decision would affect a lot of content. One commenter in that AFD didn't even understand why Saturday morning TV is a distinct thing, another wrongly asserted that network programming varied by state (which they don't beyond local time airing in Central/Mountain zones, but the relative time and order never change). The remaining commenters (including the nom) said nothing of substance and did nothing to even address the comments and arguments raised in the 2012 AFD, let alone acknowledge that there had been any previous "keep" decisions. Not a lot to hang your hat on, and we've already reached far more substance and participation in this AFD, so whether consensus has indeed changed we will see it better illustrated here and now.

      And there have actually been plenty of other AFDs in line with that 2012 group AFD (though they are hard to track down as many have nominated single articles), showing that the recent 4-person delete result was the anomaly: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) ("keep", 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule ("keep", 2013, and nominated purely on a TOOSOON basis); and non-American schedules kept on the same rationale as the American ones such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Brazil network television schedule ("keep", very recently in February 2015), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 New Zealand primetime television schedule ("keep", 2013). I see the Australian ones have been widely deleted, however, because (as comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Australian network television schedule (2nd nomination) indicate) Australian network programming appears to be a very different beast than American TV such that their schedules are not meaningful in the same way. Maybe that's part of the problem you're having with this, if you're judging it by the TV that you're personally familiar with. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm afraid your theory is wrong. If you look at my edit history you'll see I edit a lot of US TV articles. If it was still being produced this might be a good target for Hoarders. Yes, we do keep lists, but there's a difference here. As I said, these are effectively just old TV guides in the corner that we can't bring ourselves to throw out, and nothing that you've said in your latest post changes anything I said earlier. As for "more substance and participation in this AFD", claims that these are "important for television/entertainment historians" haven't been proven with evidence, keep all and restore is lacking any substance and another is just support for your rationale, with nothing really added as justification for keeping. Effectively we just have your vote as a reason for keeping. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm finding it hard to respond to you because you haven't really developed a coherent argument about the notability or relevance of these programming lists, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "you haven't proven anything". But haven't proven what exactly? That these shows or the networks are notable? I don't think you're disputing that. That a particular show's scheduling and time-slot competition is highly relevant to its history, reception, and ultimate success? I don't know why you'd dispute that. That a network's lineup for a season is regularly discussed and analyzed, both in part and as a whole, and is an important and relevant part of that network's history as well as broadcast history for that year? I also don't know why you'd dispute that if you have any familiarity with U.S. TV. That Saturday morning network TV is a notable topic in and of itself? Again, not something up for reasonable dispute. So I'm not sure what other possible premise we're left with as a basis for your !vote, as any one of those points alone justifies keeping these lists.

          Regardless, let's see what sources we can pull up in a pinch, at least for other readers of this discussion who may be on the fence... On sources, I found pretty quickly that communications professor Michael E. Shapiro has published reference works on network programming,[52],[53] which right away supports that this information is of academic interest. There are of course numerous TV encyclopedias (as has been noted at AFD in the past) that not only cover every network series year after year but also the networks' scheduling blocks. The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off, for example, not only presents these schedules up to its publication date but with accompanying commentary "that provides an overview of programming strategies". No doubt there is much more commentary on network season lineups, scheduling decisions and changes, and time-slot competition in the prime time context (e.g., "NBC’s ‘Blacklist’ Move Creates Drama Over Thursday Lineup", "CBS Moves 'Extant' to 10 p.m., Away From Summer’s Top Show", "NBC's Thursday night comedies receive cold, mocking laughter from the ratings"). But in the Saturday morning context, some quick googling also comes up with a 1986 profile of an NBC vice president that talks in detail about her role in making its Saturday morning lineup a success, discussing additions to the schedule and the concern for balance, decisions such as a show's run-time, and ad revenue comparisons with other networks. A 2014 news story about The CW launching its own Saturday morning programming block. A 1987 news story about changes to ABC's Saturday morning lineup after it hired a consulting firm. A 1985 story about the current state of Saturday morning television, what series would be added with the upcoming season, and the cultural and political discussion about that content.

          A patchwork, to be sure, but it gives every indication that scheduling information and network season lineups are widely commented upon, to the extent that wasn't already obvious, and someone better versed with the authoritative and comprehensive sources on this topic, particularly industry journal analysis (this is big business, after all) could likely find even more clear results (the Variety archive is, alas, behind a paywall).

          The nominator, both here and in the last AFD, seemed to doubt this information was even verifiable, in complaining that it was unreferenced. They obviously didn't follow WP:BEFORE here or there. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • "I'm finding it hard to respond to you because you haven't really developed a coherent argument about the notability or relevance of these programming lists, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "you haven't proven anything"." - And you don't think that openeing comment doesn't make it hard to respond to you? It's not up to me to establish that notability doesn't exist, it's up to those defending the articles to prove that notability does exist. However, notability is only one issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • List articles do not require notability (per WP:LISTN); these lists are discriminate, limiting to only broadcast channels and not including the 100s of cable channels since, and only the blocks where networks require their programming to be aired on affiliates. It's the type of information that is appropriate for the part of WP that is more an almanac that is for completeness, not so much for encyclopedia value immediately. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources on why this information is significant, all easily found: "Inside the Scheduling Wars: Why TV Lineups Still Matter", commentary on why even in the age of DVR and streaming content time-slots, "scheduling — and the strategy behind how and when programs run — continues to play a critical role." Key quotes from a network executive: "Scheduling is still the most important thing in launching a hit...more than half the homes in the country don't have DVRs, so when you look at shows on television, they still get half their audience from their lead-in." An academic journal article, "Counterprogramming Primetime Network Television", which analyzed the success of different strategies of choosing competing programs in the same time-slot to draw away the rival network's audience, and another news story on counterprogramming ("each programming decision is made with the careful consideration of what's showing on the other networks."). "1994-95: One of Network TV's Last Great Seasons", analyzing the major series debuting that season (i.e., discussing as a group), the relative success of the networks' lineups on specific days ("...ABC remained a ratings giant thanks to its Tuesday and Wednesday lineups of mass-appeal comedies..."), the broader historic context for that season, and making comparisons with ratings of later seasons to show how industry expectations have changed (e.g., the #1 show in 2014 would have placed #57 in that season).

    I don't see what more evidence one needs here that network season scheduling and the schedules for individual seasons are of historical significance to broadcast history generally, the history of the notable networks (these schedules basically are network history), and the history of every notable TV series. Not that it makes sense to claim otherwise in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All (and Restore the other article deleted at a low-participation AfD) per the arguments of (and new sources located by) postdlf. These are historical lists of notable shows on notable networks. I would also argue that WP:NOTTVGUIDE is an old, relatively poor excuse of a redirect to Wikipedia is not a directory as none of the six current criteria there adequately encompass lists like these most certain to "flag" it (i.e., they're not "loosely associated topics", which is the closest-matching criterion there). Pax 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using those links to try to justify notability for these articles is mostly WP:SYNTH. They don't specifically apply to these lists. Remember too, notability is not inherited. Just because a TV series is notable doesn't mean that a list mentioning it is also notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You complained about the criticism of the test AFD as not representative of consensus, and a history of AFDs to the contrary was presented. You asked for evidence that network schedules are a topic of RS commentary and analysis, and a wide range of sources was presented. Your initial response was the non sequitur "I don't have to prove anything and notability isn't everything." Now you assert, without explanation, that the evidence constitutes SYNTH in this discussion (notwithstanding that OR only limits article content, and that's plainly not at issue here), and drop another non sequitur about NOTINHERITED and the notability of the lists.

The sources establish conclusively two separate but related points: 1) that network/season schedules are highly relevant to the history of network series, which makes it an encyclopedic means of indexing them per WP:LISTPURP, and 2) that there is regularly significant reporting on and commentary about every season's lineup which makes the schedules themselves notable (and I still have no clue why you would think otherwise--you have not yet presented your own understanding of the subject, just "derp derp hoarders"). Either point is sufficient to justify keeping the lists. Is your claim now that, because I have not comprehensively documented the history of every year of network coverage within this AFD, that there was somehow a TV season that slipped through the cracks and that no one talked about? I can only guess. I'm not sure if your lone support of the nomination is why this was relisted, but if all you're going to do is offer more dismissive handwaving of the sources and repeating your original unelaborated opinion, then there's nothing left that needs to be responded to. An unelaborated "still haven't proved nothin'" is not a substantive rebuttal. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 9 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and restore the 2002-2003 article which was deleted by too small a group of editors. These historic schedules are in no way a "TV Guide" to help one decide what to watch, unless the one in question owns a time machine. These schedules have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. They satisfy both notability and the guidelines for lists.I seriously urge those with access to the books and articles discussing the subject to add articles for the years prior to 1960, since there were certainly Saturday morning network programs many years earlier. Edison (talk) 02:06, 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 Speedy delete as a copyvio. Many thanks to Maralia for noting this. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Stephen Bilbrey, DVM[edit]

Dr. Stephen Bilbrey, DVM (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:BIO as the only realistic claim to notability is the "Maurice Shahan Award", and very low citation index on pubs so WP:PROF is not met either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, more a resume than an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Have asked the admin who blocked the article's creator (for 3 promotional articles on other vets in the same practice) to take a look. The subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Every word of the article is copyvio of the cited source; it should have been speedied. Maralia (talk) 04:50, 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) 11:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAGGiS Adventures[edit]

HAGGiS Adventures (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 has been knocking around for a few years, but it really doesn't seem notable. The bulk was written by an SPA, and it feels very ad-ish. Besides the small blurb in the Scotsman, there doesn't appear to be much media. Agtx (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The firm was one of several recipients of VisitScotland awards in 2005 ([54] (via Highbeam, subscription reqd)), and were one of several providers in their market segment included in an article here (again via Highbeam) but I don't think these or the brief notices in the Herald and Scotsman referenced in the article are sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH (or for a redirect to The Travel Corporation). AllyD (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete. Only The Scotsman is a Reliable source, and there are just a few paragraphs mentioning an advert that this outfit put up all over town. Big deal. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 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 Symbiosis#Mutualism . feel free to merge anything useful Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multigenomic organism[edit]

Multigenomic organism (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 has a misleading title that does not accurately reflect its subject matter and is not in accord with scientific consensus on the meaning of the term "multigenomic organism". It appears to describe obligate symbionts (a page which does not yet exist), not multigenomic organisms. A multigenomic organism would be an organism that is described as a belonging to a single species but which happens to have several distinct genomes - potentially from symbiogenesis or allopolyploidy. One could conceivably have a multigenomic organism without a symbioic relationship (i.e. organisms with distinct nuclear and mitochondrial genomes that arose as a result of symbiogenesis would not be called symbionts because the two ancestral organisms have ceased to be distinct). I think that this article needs to be heavily revised or, preferably, deleted in accordance with WP:TNT ("the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over"). In its place, it would be ideal to create separate pages for both obligate symbionts and multigenomic organisms and highlight the potential for confusion. Lagomorphae(t) 02:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lagomorphae(t) 02:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Symbiosis#Mutualism (with some rewrite to fit there, perhaps with a new subsection), if I understand correctly the topic (it is not so much a matter of WP policy there). I do not agree with the TNT invocation as I think there should be no article at all at Multigenomic organism; reasons detailed below.
A "multigenomic organism" would be one that includes multiple genomes. The confusion with symbiosis comes from the problem of what an "organism" is. For instance, human intestinal bacteria could not survive outside the human body, the human host needs them to survive, and neither is eliciting an immune system response from the other. Debating whether there is one organism ("human") with multiple genomes or multiple organisms (human + bacteria) with one genome each, living in symbiosis, seems a bit moot to me.
Since there is no real-life example of multigenomic organism that could not be rewritten as obligate symbiosis[citation needed], even if in theory you could imagine some (say, having different genomes for liver cells than for hearth cells) I do not think that it warrants more than a mention on the symbiosis page such as "Organisms in mutual obligate symbiotic relationships are sometimes considered as a single organism with multiple genomes".
Oh, and some sources would be good, in any case. Tigraan (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striked some, see below. Also notice that my "merge" is almost the same thing as the "move and rewrite" below. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rewrite or delete. The content of the article is a valid topic, and the title is a valid topic, but they don't go together. There are real examples of organisms that are referred to as "multigenomic" (mostly arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, but I see some bacteria and protists described with this term also). If there's anything in the content of this article worth preserving, move it to obligate symbiont; otherwise delete it. Meanwhile, write a new article at this title on actual multigenomic organisms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:35, 23 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,  Sandstein  15:46, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/rewrite. I agree with Opabinia regalis. A quick google scholar search using the link above reveals several papers on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and Deinococcus radiodurans, both of which are described as multigenomic organisms and have been shown to carry several distinct genome copies within a single cell.[1][2] AMF are a perfect example of why it is important to distinguish between multigenomic organisms and obligate symbionts: In addition to having multiple genomes per cell (i.e. being multigenomic organisms), AMF are also obligate symbionts with vascular plants. The current page for multigenomic organism confuses these two properties.
    Furthermore, I cannot find evidence of scientific researchers studying symbiotic partners referring to them as a multigenomic organism. The only example of such a usage that I found was in a philosophy dissertation discussing symbiotic microbes and their hosts.[3] The author uses the phrase "multigenomic organism" only once to refer to the collective unit of a host and its symbionts, preferring to use the term holobiont. (For an in-depth explanation of the term holobiont, see this article).
    I think the best solution would be to create obligate symbiont and move any useful content from this article there. Multigenomic organism should be rewritten to describe organisms with multiple genome copies per cell, in agreement with how the term is used by biologists. This article should contain a section acknowledging other uses of the term (e.g. as a synonym for holobiont) outside of the field of biology.Lagomorphae(t) 02:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being given the current organization of symbiosis and related articles such as Mutualism_(biology), I think it would be better to add a subsection somewhere rather than creating a standalone article. If the host article needs to be summarized-split afterwards because of length, then so be it, that is regular editorial work. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 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. MBisanz talk 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jody Brown Indian Family[edit]

The Jody Brown Indian Family (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)

Unable to find any reliable sources to back up anything in this article. The group don't seem notable and fail WP:NMUSIC. Seems like a lot of Original Research was used. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend KEEP, while the article doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC, the original author User:Sogospelman has a record for creating related articles (related, as in the same category, not the same group). It's very possible the only information he could find was on the label's webpage, which, unfortunately seems to have deleted their information on the group. I will note that the reason I'm commenting here is because I keep hearing one of their songs on the radio, and I finally figured out it was theirs after asking the radio station (WLJA-FM). A Google search brought me to the article, and I saw that it was recommended for deletion.Twilliams1755 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Twilliams1755: Read WP:ILIKEIT... JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 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) 04:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a considerable amount of significant and good sources despite multiple searches aside from one (supporting an award). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kay[edit]

Gregory Kay (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)

He is a businessman with a factory and a retail store. He has one article about him from his local newspaper. He is not Notable at all. I attempted to clean up the article by removing all the puff, but when I did, there was nothing left. You can check the Edit summary. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - between the three subjects (Lightology, Tech Lighting, and Gregory Kay) there does appear to be some notability, but not enough for three articles. Normally when we discount "local" sources, we are talking about small-town newspapers, not something like the Chicago Tribune. The reason is that such papers are indiscriminate - they literally cover all businesses within the town at some point. The Tribune (and other Chicago-based sources) is a different story entirely. It most certainly does not cover every business and in depth coverage by the publication of a Chicago business carries implication of notability as in depth coverage of any other subject would. Additionally, there are multiple trade publications covering some combination of Lightology/Tech Lighting/Gregory Kay in depth, and trade publications that meet the RS guidelines (e.g. have editorial control) are perfectly valid reliable, secondary sources. Thus, notability has been established by indepth coverage both locally and in trade publications. However 3 articles are overkill. The most natural place to cover all 3 subjects in one article is Gregory Kay. Thus, I am suggesting all three be merged together at that title and will volunteer to do so (and clean up promotional language) if the AfD consensus accepts the idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 2 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) 04:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A small handful of trade publication piece plus a single profile in a regional paper does not constitute significant or in-depth coverage. Rather, it is routine coverage. Neutralitytalk 03:43, 19 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) 11:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Sabrouty[edit]

Tarek Sabrouty (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 dog behaviorist that fails to meet WP:BIO. All available material is self-generated and/or social media. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional detail about a not WP:NOTABLE person Govindaharihari (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – is not notable in any way. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt and went looking for sources to confirm notability, but I turned up almost nothing. No evidence of notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho[edit]

Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho (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 television show. No coverage in reliable sources, article consists of unverified claims and Facebook links. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The show is the leading magazine show in the country, and therefore I have added an citation because every article is required to atleast have one. Angelo6397 (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Right now the article's a bit of a mess, but a long-running (10+ years!) magazine show on a major television network, and which has won several awards (both local and foreign, to my recollection) is probably notable. Granted, most of the sources you'll probably find for the latter are non-independent ones, but the fact is, the show did win awards, which would probably by itself be enough to establish notability, while I remember seeing in one of our notability guidelines that shows that air nationwide on a nationwide network are generally notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of independent reliable sources around. This is like the Philippine version of Inside Edition, that and Rated K.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Stability for the Disabled[edit]

Financial Stability for the Disabled (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)

Self-published book with little external citation and no independent sources found. Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. No independent references. It seems like a typical "self-help" book. Also it was created by a single purpose account ("K a t e l e m k e") who also has another account ("Katealemke") and both only work on promotional articles about the author Austin Mardon. Elgatodegato (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Austin_Mardon#Bibliography. Like his other book, I can't find anything to show that this work would pass notability guidelines. Since one of the authors has an article then this can just redirect to his bibliography, which now includes this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I'm going to block one of the two accounts since it looks to be the same person operating under two accounts with nothing to show exactly why they're doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there are more- I'll open an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources. Not inclined to redirect to the bio article as I'm not convinced that meets notability either. Maralia (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing. Book appears to have regional relevence only.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 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. Just Chilling (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadleigh Roberts[edit]

Hadleigh Roberts (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)

Declined speedy deletion. Non-notable politician: at present only a candidate to become a MP; as a Labour candidate in Thornbury and Yate (UK Parliament constituency). IMO if he gets elected on May 7 he'll have no need to use Westminster Bridg to cross the Thames.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Note This is a lost AfD nomination, the time of this comment is approximately when it was first listed in a daily deletion log. Monty845 02:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having lost the election and never served in office, clearly fails WP:BIO. Monty845 02:47, 9 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) 11:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didel[edit]

Didel (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:GNG, Just another Indian surname. No reliable sources discuss it. We do not even seem yet to have an article for any person of that name, so creating a dab of people who share it is not feasible. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Any check for sources? any check in particular, for printed sources from the country in question? DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. GSearch, JSTOR, Questia, DeGruyter, the library catalogues and search facilities of several major universities (Cambridge, Columbia etc), my own home "library" (pretty extensive), emails with native-language speakers in India over several years. I know all about WP:BEFORE but I do believe you have access to NYPL and I haven't checked there.

    I can mention it specifically at WT:INB if you want, rather than relying on delsort, but it is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome. This is a very typical stub of the "Indian last name" variety and frankly I'm fed up of seeing them: it is no more notable or discussed than my own name, perhaps even less so. Apologies if this seems arrogant but this is one of the few subject areas where I know what I'm doing and most regulars know that I, erm, know. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be no evidence that this is notable as a surname which, in this context, is always a bit more than just a name, given the caste/community/etc denotations. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What nom and drmies say. I suppose that, at some level, many last names are caste or profession based but, lacking sources, we can't really make the etymological call ourselves. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 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) 11:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Grillo[edit]

Vivian Grillo (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)

Subject turns up no hits on Google news, could find nothing to support a notability claim. Article might warrant a redirect to X-Factor instead of deletion. KDS4444Talk 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, article is also incoherent. Citobun (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Though if redirected it will likely just be recreated under that article again. Anyway either of those are my choice. Wgolf (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B (venue)[edit]

Plan B (venue) (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)

Coverage in timeout.com is WP:ROUTINE, having had someone die after leaving the club does not make that club notable. In accordance with WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE I propose that this article be deleted. KDS4444Talk 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see any notices. Most is about "plan B venue" like alternatives. Elgatodegato (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete-per nom. Upon seeing the title I keep on thinking this is suppose be something like "as opposed to plan a" Wgolf (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 03:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betti-Sue Hertz[edit]

Betti-Sue Hertz (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)

Apparently non-notable curator; she has done what curators do (curate exhibitions, write some stuff about them), but where is the in-depth coverage of her work in substantial independent publications. Her highest Scholar cites seem to be 4. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "in-depth coverage of her work in substantial independent publications" that Nom requests is on the first page of a google news search of her name, at the San Francisco Chronicle,here [55] and ArtDaily,here [56] right where you would expect it to be. Curator of significant art center. Lots of coverage of exhibits she brought in to Yerba Buena. Curators are people who begin careers as scholars, then segue into administration where they are properly judged not by citations of their often brief scholarly careers, but by their success in bringing in viewers, and improving the institutions reputation and funding. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While the article is in pretty bad shape right now, the person may be notable. I went through the list of references, and many offer only a passing mention of the subject, but I believe there are enough sources with non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Pishcal — ♣ 15:32, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted above, many of the references are not great (e.g., quoting the subject once and not suggesting any notability) but there are 3 or 4 that appear to be sufficient to show WP:GNG notability. I removed several references that do not mention, and do not tend to prove anything regarding, the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 01:01, 9 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.
  1. ^ Kuhn, Gerrit; Hijri, Mohamed; Sanders, Ian R. (13 December 2001). "Evidence for the evolution of multiple genomes in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi". Nature.
  2. ^ Battista, John R. (1 March 2000). "Radiation resistance: The fragments that remain". Current Biology.
  3. ^ Booth, Austin (20 May 2014). "Symbiosis, selection, and individuality". Biology & Philosophy.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_9&oldid=1142624808"