Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 December	17 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Fire Department[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a municipal fire department. As always, fire departments exist in virtually every city or town and do the same things everywhere, so they aren't all extended an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the key to making a fire department notable enough for a Wikipedia article is reliably sourcing some genuinely substantive content about what makes it unique, not just stating that exists and then cataloguing its fire trucks into a trainspotter directory. But this, as written, can't even claim to pass WP:GNG, as the only references being cited here at all are governmental primary sources, not reliable or independent ones. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to be unique in order to be notable. It's irrelevent that fire departments exist all over the world. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't understand what is special with this fire department . Fails GNG Alex-h (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are existing articles on fire departments that are comparable in size and notability to the Durham Fire department here, here, and a x10 smaller Dept., there is also a Durham Police Department article. This is one of the biggest fire departments in North Carolina that serves a city of over a quarter million people. It is certainly notable enough for an article. I'm still working on fleshing out the history and and other details about the department in the article and I'm going to be adding a more diverse source list. ForDisplayOnly (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2018 (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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xóchitl Rodríguez[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced BLP of a small-city mayor. Woodland CA is a city where the mayoralty rotates annually among the city councillors rather than being directly elected, so it's not a city where the mayor gets an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the referencing here is not solid enough to get her over WP:GNG as the subject of significant press coverage -- two of the footnotes here are the city's own primary source website about itself, which is not a source that assists in making a mayor notable, and the other two (one of which is repeated twice for the appearance, but not the reality, of three) are just the routine coverage of her initial selection in the local media -- this is a depth of sourcing that absolutely every mayor of everywhere could always show, so it's not nearly enough to make her special. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor of a place with less than 60,000 is not default notable and nothing else suggests the person here is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree mayor of such a small city is not necessarily notable Alex-h (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not enough coverage to meet WP:NPOL notability guidelines; only coverage is in local sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (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 for keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sreyash Sarkar[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

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

Non notable per WP:BIO. Possibly too soon. References mix of blogs, dud refs, creative writing events pages, own work. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the notability is tenuous. Suggesting to improve references. Srsgd (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the references. Just a question: does this news article fall under WP:SIGCOV? <https://news.africa/2017/10/page/497/> Rbhu23 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the validity of this person's notability needs to be addressed.Raydsgf (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment Hi Folks. It is BLP article that is covered by WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. The article needs secondary sources to confirm, WP:V tha the subject is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: the article was reviewed by five different people at ACPERM and it was rejected by all of them. The lede author then moved it from ACPERM to mainspace, even though it was rejected. scope_creep^Talk 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but this citation looks WP:RS and contains a screenful of text specifically about him.

(I agree with other contributors about the state of the sourcing, which could use a good cleanup.) Narky Blert (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referring to this citation. But the article needs a lot of cleanups. Specifically in the bio section. Agree with Narky Blert. Sfuelte (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The first references I checked (and deleted) was to a school with nothing about the author. The second reference "I checked" is to Poetry Pacific. The sites states: '...the most beautiful place to create your poetry blog--meaning Self-published. I hope I have better luck going forward. Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually the reference that was deleted byOtr500, contains references to the person. this citation mentions him as an achiever in the EXCELLENCE / ACHIEVEMENTS section. He studied here, most probably. Thus, the reference is relevant.Srsgd (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: JUST because the subject studied there does not mean we can advertise an entire web page expecting someone to read an entire article. Link to the relevant section in the reference. The notability on the subject as a poet should mean there are sources for reviews (critics) on "poems". I see poems:The Optical Symphony, The Cage, The Macramé of Carnal Waves, and Malaise but the reference is a review (The Galway Review) actually on the author and just listing the poems. That does, however, give evidence that the poems have received recognition. Otr500 (talk)

Weak keep: but a note to the article editors (some appearing new and even thus far single purpose accounts) to provide against future AFD's notability needs to be clearly established by sources and not just by the number of sources on the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Guys, this is also a revision of the organization of the subject's published works: wherein there is a need for separation of the review magazines from the other publications. Also, since there are multiple magazines publishing the same poems, so organising based on poems should be done.Raydsgf (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so am trying to integrate review magazines in the "Publications" section, that are really just references, into the article. Also, "IF" the subject is a noted poet, then it makes no sense at all that somewhere there would not be links to any poems establishing such notability as a poet, right? Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, considering this citation, also taking into account review magazines like Galway Review + Red River Review etc.But, the article needs proper structure. Agree with Raydsgf & Otr500 YuNX21 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Galway Review is a top flight reference. I think it can now be close a keep, which I do shortly if the references are in the article. scope_creep^Talk 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Galway Review was in there from the beginning. I have wasted everybodies time. I will close it now. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 21 December 2018 (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. Additional references proving secondary coverage to establish notability were provided. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franny Choi[edit]

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

Non notable but moving. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 21:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a writer, she would need to meet WP:AUTHOR, so we need evidence of whether #1 she is regarded as an important figure, or #3 has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or #4 her work has won significant critical attention. The article does not include any reviews, but I have found some eg [1], [2], [3], and there may well be more WP:NEXIST. Looking at the edit history, it appears that this article was created as part of a course. I would suggest that tags for improved referencing could have been added as WP:ATD.
Comment I dont like getting rid of a poets, particularly since they are considered to be the very best that humanaties got, but there is very little coverage, i.e. no coverage, meaning no secondary references. scope_creep^Talk 23:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Find some references. scope_creep^Talk 12:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the instructor of the course for which this page was created. Will deletion move the page to a draft so we can continue adding references?Timothy.robbins (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)--Timothy.robbins (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy.robbins No, it is deleted. The sources need to be of a much higher quality, as it is a BLP article and it needs to satisfy WP:BIO. The refs to the subjects own site, to prove notiblity are unacceptable. I have added a couple including one from PBS which is of a high quality. I've take out some of the worst ones that dont satisfy WP policy. Please add more. With the Huff and PBS article ref, I now think she is probably notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of an AfD is to delete, then the article is not accessible to ordinary editors, though any who have worked on it can see its history through their User contributions. Another option for voters is Draftify, which would move the article back to draft space and allow more work on it. (I see it's actually called Incubation - see WP:ATD-I.) So far, no one has voted Delete on this AfD, though - we are trying to identify the relevant criteria and suggest ways of meeting them, or include sources to do so, as the editor who nominated the article for deletion has actually done. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of the Huffington Post and PBS sources, the subject passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Timothy.robbins, i see that her book Floating, Brilliant, Gone is held by around 100 libraries, this may be because it is available as an ebook but there also could be a number of reviews of it out there in literaryland, as long as they're from reliable sources the student can and them and they will contribute to Choi's notablitiy. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination Withdrawn Article is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus of the discussion is that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR; the delete !votes did not either did not address this issue directly or vague waved past it. The BLP concerns are very real, and have semi-protected the page for 30 days as a result with the hope that this will give some leeway to clean it up. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindquist[edit]

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

I deleted this article but was challenged on the deletion so I restored the article and am sending it to AfD. The original argument by the CSD tagger was "This has become an attack page. It violates BLP rules, violates NPOV rules, relies on tabloid sourcing, assertions don't match citations, and is libelous."

I agreed with this rationale that this article has become a hit job and deleted it but other editors disagreed so I'm opening this up for a larger discussion to see what AfD regulars think. If we removed all of the negative content, all that would be left is a list of the novels this prosecutor has written and even they have negative reviews. I should add that this individual went through a political campaign and much of the editing this year probably reflects people's strong feelings about the candidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article also reflects the editing by his campaign to whitewash this person. He has clearly generated some controversy so more eyes on the page would be good. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional - the negative comments are justified. The issue is that positive and neutral comments have not been added (or potentially have been removed - I'd have to have a more extensive look back through the versions). The addition (and crucially, maintenance) of these would lead to a more balanced (though likely still "negative") article that is no longer NPOV. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a good example of that is his book, Never Mind Nirvana. This article gives 1 negative review only, the article on the book has one positive and one equivocal. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually forgot to use the article's and hunted down another, which was somewhere between positive and equivocal. I also checked his second book, on which the review was actually mixed, not wholly negative as indicated by the cherry-picked review quote. His first book does indeed appear to be agreed as terrible. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - As someone who was elected to political office and got some press coverage for his performance in that job (however bad it was), he should satisfy the basic requirements at WP:POLITICIAN, and his books have gotten some notable reviews (again, however bad) which helps with WP:AUTHOR. He has some legitimate coverage about his alleged misdeeds in his region's news media, but also a bunch of critics' sites like this: [4]. If the page is being vandalized by critics, some sort of protection may be in order. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this "hit job" is bad for wikipedia. Liz was right to delete it. I don't edit, but I read a lot about writers and wikipedia used to be really interesting, but some pages are just trolling and this is like the worst. Don't we have enough trolling everywhere without wikipedia too? The negative attacks on "legal career" are totally misleading, like a lot of political attacks, and don't even make sense to me. Same with attacks on books. There are dozens and dozens of articles with positive stuff about him as a lawyer and and a writer, but someone cherry-picked the worst trollish opinions for here. Never Mind Nirvana has dozens of great reviews, but never mind that. Yeah, I'm biased because I'm a fan and because I hate trolling and politics, but I really think wikipedia shouldn't be a place for "hit jobs" like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litrules (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC) — Litrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Draftify This is someone who is clearly notable under a SNG for WP:AUTHOR, but this is a BLP hit piece. He fails WP:NPOL, for what it's worth. It needs to be draftified and cleaned up per NPOV. SportingFlyer talk 01:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Draftify~~ Keep; attack content removed: If the article cannot be restructured to conform to policies and guidelines that include WP:5P1 (not a newspaper), WP:5P2 (NPOV), and WP:BLP it should not exist. Unless consensus has changed the subject does not qualify for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN. The controversy surrounding the position (newspaper drama) does not rise to nationalized or internationalized recognition. This means that WP:AUTHOR is the only claim for WP:notability and the article relegates that notability to mention in the lead (...and author) and an embedded list only that is written with a slanted view. My issue is that other than allowing everything in the world an article on Wikipedia the criterion under Creative professionals (AUTHOR) includes: #1 - important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, #2- known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, #3- created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work -- such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews., #4- The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. This seems to indicate that "just" being published does not meet the requirements". Otr500 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: - to resolve WP:NAUTHOR first, he must pass #3 since several of his books have "multiple independent reviews". Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: - WP:POL includes "local political figures who have received significant press coverage." A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Tacoma News Tribune won the Ted Natt First Amendment award for coverage of the subject in 2016. More feature articles exist that aren't cited here. Mcfnord (talk) 14 December 2018 (UTC)— Mcfnord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply: I totally disagree on politician: Just because there is sourcing does not mean we should have an article that could allow say a mundane yet crooked subject (not my sourcing) to have an article "JUST" because there was a lot of negative press. This would be great examples of how to create and accept junk wanna-a-be bios. If I believed that I could start a hundred articles on crooked politicians in Louisiana, --sourced through local New Orleans and Baton Rouge newspapers, with some local TV news coverage. ---Probably not because other editors apparently already think that way so we can just wait on more of these.

Just a good review of a book (acceptable source) does not inherently offer notability to support a biographical article. There are four references concerning the books, that are about the books, and 10 concerning the junk (just news) on the politician side --and all negative. Take them out of the equation and there is ZERO sources to support a biography on the subject which defines WP:PSEUDO. That is facts and I can take the hit on AFD statistic if consensus deems Wikipedia should allow this. I still am not convinced that 4 reviews on four books, that only provide passing mention of the subject, ---and a lot of negative publicity making the subject appear locally as a corrupt politician (no charges or convictions), as noteworthy for a NPOV and unbiased BLP on Wikipedia. We are still suppose to hold BLP's to a higher standard of sourcing right? When I searched for sources (to support a BLP) I could only find local stuff on the subject (negative) as a politician and places to buy the ebooks and paperback books on Amazon. IF all the crap is finally deleted there will be four books with reviews on the four books and that just does not pass any form of notability for a sustainable article. We can keep it and hope someone one day does a biography on him to give us something to actually cover. By-the-way: If there is assertions that AFD is not cleanup then we should all stop now and accept all articles (do away with AFD) because deleting those not acceptable is actually cleanup. That is why we allow for WP:HEY and other venues that might allow an article to remain. He wrote some books that did not make any lists so lets make a BLP on his corrupt (perceived by the sources) political life and throw in a mention of the books as a "by-the-way" (embedded list): He is also an author. I am sorry but I just don't get it. Read the Wikipedia article. It portrays an unethical local, possibly corrupt politician, that happens to have written four books. Otr500 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: - you're disagreement with author notability as the sources are on the books seems to conflict with NAUTHOR #3 fairly significantly, as it fairly clearly indicates that it's the books and their reviews that are needed to generate the notability. It's fairly rare to get sources covering authors themselves, especially discounting interviews.

However, it is important to say that while "AfD is not cleanup" is an important one, a complete failure for an article to be NPOV is a specific CSD (and thus also grounds for an AfD when that is disputed). The !voters saying that notability may be satisfied but it is an attack page are fully entitled to say delete. Though I am concerned in 1 or 2 cases about potential COI/SPA. Nosebagbear (talk)

Delete The article is comprised WP:NPOV content, and sources are from questionable sites. Rocktober2018 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is correct that the subject would not normally meet WP:POLITICIAN (because of his position as a county prosecutor) and but is is hard to say that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR with a review from the New York Times. In combination, the subject easily passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a slightly odd reason for the weak here. I think notability is clearly established by WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3. The legitimate potential grounds for deletion/redirect are attack page/completely non-NPOV. I do not feel those are clearly satisfied now, thus moving us into the realms of clean-up rather than removal. However we are also not clearly out of that area - hence the weak keep. Nosebagbear (talk)
Comment - A query to the Deletes - why are you saying delete rather than "Redirect to Never Mind Nirvana? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'*reply': If I didn't feel there was notability I would have went with just delete. I would have no problem with a redirect to a book as an author.The political drama could then be trimmed. - .Otr500 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement, sourcing. The coverage of this dude visible in a news archive search is is remarkable, stuff like "Legal and literary hunk Novelist and Pierce County deputy prosecutor Mark Lindquist is named one of People magazine's 100 most eligible bachelors" Reid, Cheryl. The News Tribune; Tacoma, Wash. [Tacoma, Wash]04 Aug 2000: SL1. His books got enough reviews to pass WP:NAUTHOR; many more than are now in the page. Can't see a justification to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are too many concerns of the negative nature of the article giving completely appropriate grounds for User:Liz to delete. I removed the content on the politician part of the article per Wikipedia:Attack page and changed my !vote accordingly. This was reverted (very fast before I could provide rationale so I undid the reversion. Any added content, or restoration, on the prosecutor aspects (and controversy) must conform to WP:NPOV. Concerned editors "should" watch the page or at least be open to pinging to prevent this type of attack pages from being allowed on Wikipedia per policy. 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up the page and protecting it would be a better approach.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but we can not keep going in circular motions when there is clear policy concerning the attack aspects. The only valid rationale to keep an article amid concerns of policy violation would be WP:IGNORE and someone can approach that idea and see how it flies. Keep the page as an author (there are sources out there) --add some of the negative reviews I have seen, and add prosecutor related content according to strict BLP policies. Otr500 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not like being a deletionist but we have a set of "rules" and I judge AFD's according to that. I would like to keep more articles but keep hitting brick walls. Per discussions above I removed the blatant policy violations, since this is not "cleanup", to try to justify keeping one. We can keep the article and continue discussions on the talk page for adding aspects of the actually non-notable prosecutor content. Either there is collaboration or not seems the only choice. If not I will change my !vote again and attempt to see if attack page and BLP policies are jokes or not. I would like to go about my proverbial rat killing (no actual harm to animals intended) and per my opinions and suggestions try to add material to Wikipedia and still disallow the chaos of circumventing these multitude of the policies and guidelines that are intended to produce a quality encyclopedia. That, I realize, is just my opinion but does not appear to be a Trojan Horse. An help here would be appreciated. Otr500 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have added several reviews of his books in major daily papers to the page and to the page on his bluelinked novel. More exist and can be added, but he clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. In addition, there has been WP:SIGCOV of him over the years, by no means all negative. Note also that page is now a sourced stub, mostly just listing his books, and attack material has been deleted. ~~I suggest hat we Keep and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Request - it's roughly even in !votes anyway (actually slightly towards keep), but given requests for close I thought I'd note that given ongoing disputes on the content, here, and major disputes over the arguments, a relist seems in order. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to me, this is a familiar type of article. It is about an author and former public official whose books have been widely reviewed, but mostly negatively. And whose work as a public official was widely covered, but mostly negatively. The great problem with such articles is the tendency of partisans to try to bowdlerize or delete them. One I remember from early in my editing career is Matthew C. Whitaker, a professor man who lost his job because he was a plagiarist. Editors tried to do everything form blanking the page, to deleting the page, to removing criticism - one tried repeatedly to get me banned from editing. More recently Julia Salazar's page has been repeatedly bowdlerized (to remove her remarkable career as a fabulist). It might be easier to delete pages on folks who attract partisan defenders to whitewash their pages, but it is our usual practice to keep them. And hope for NPOV editing to happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Stub or Delete as noted the page became unreliable political drama and not NVOP nor informative as described in Five Pillars. Most reviews of his books are positive; see his website (warning: only quotes positive or neutral reviews naturally). And most coverage of him as a lawyer and public official is positive or neutral. But you would not know this from the page. I think attempts at NPOV and fair BLP have been quickly reverted by partisans, even very recently, and I think neutral people lose interest? I also think he is more notable as the author of Never Mind Nirvana, the book he is known for, at least by some, than as a former public official who is unknown outside of his former district. User:S&S1109 (talk) 16 December 2018 (UTC) — S&S1109 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion here is less than 24 hours old and a relist is fine. If this gains several keep !votes early on after the relist, I'll close as keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as a lawyer, nor as far as I can tell, as an author. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, numerous reviews for his books from reliable sources, article includes them, btw The King of Methlehem meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, Lindquist's article has 2 here is more: kirkus - "Lindquist doesn’t glamorize drug life: Howard and his colleagues are described as the living dead, with teeth like “dying brown and grey pegs poking out from swollen gums.” But evocative details, such as the steps necessary to create meth from a mix of cold medicine and automotive supplies, enmesh us in Howard’s mad world right up to the inevitable, satisfying conclusion.", The Seattle Times - "The story is thus shot throught with inside knowledge, from law enforcement and legal procedures to the grubby, scary details of making and using meth.", btw, page can be protected to reduce trolling/npov issues. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability claim via NAUTHOR as well as just plain GNG. In as much as this is an attack piece (though we should cover significant controversies a BLP is involved in) - stub the relevant prosecutor section down (which seems to have been done at the version I'm looking at).Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist The article has several problems. A major contributor has WP:COI. WP:PROMO material is continuously being included in the article. Rocktober2018 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC) strike 2nd iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note that I am replacing the following 2 comments that - somehow - went missing from this discussion.
Note that 2 SPAs have argued to delete, a 3rd SPA has engaged in discussion, and that new User:Rocktober2018 has a very brief editing record, coming here only after being warned about COI editing to promote a commercial product. Certainly, this page/discussion are strange. (I stand by my "keep" opinion above.)E.M.Gregory made this comment 14:31, 17 December 2018

I think it's definitely a keep too, just need to figure out how to write it neutrally given this is a rather strange case (and BLP.) User:SportingFlyer made this comment 17:47, 17 December 2018‎, and it somehow disappeared.

The 3 SPAs and the comments by new editor Rocktober2018 feels like someone attempting to game the system. I Note that if page's subject, Mark Lindquist, wants this page deleted, he can make a request. His books and his career got sufficient coverage to warrant a page, but I believe that a reasonable argument could be made by Lindquist that his notability is sufficiently moderate that we could decide to delete the page if he made such a request.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftJet Inc.[edit]

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

I don’t think this passes WP:ORG. Sources found just indicate existence, not notability.. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Post article doesn't even mention the company or the founder. A Before search found nothing. This could likely be speedied. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I nominated the article for a Cat A7 speedy deletion in 2010 but that was knocked back. A G11 speedy is arguably warranted. YSSYguy (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turtlecoin[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. No reliable sources about the topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. All current sources are either from the Turtlecoin project or sites with user-generated content. BenKuykendall (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Website defunct, no other reliable sources other than those listed in article Rogermx (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct, not notable. Reywas92^Talk 08:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the references in the article and available from searches (e.g. "Techies aim to make money from memories", Indianapolis Business Journal, 6 February 2012) is local routine start-up coverage. Perhaps broader is the USAToday "Startup wants to collect your memories" but, again, that appears to be start-up proposition coverage. In sum, I do not see enough to demonstrate notability by WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. (Note: there appears to have been earlier unrelated banking products using the Remember.com domain name around 2002.) AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus for keep. From those active in the field there is also a significant feeling that this may be an unnecessary contentfork - a merge request may be suitable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native American women artists[edit]

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

Completely redundant; There are already List of Native American artists and List of Native American women of the United States. If referring to those lists is too onerous to a reader, they could go to Category:Native American women artists. Author is apparently not familiar with Native American art or how it is covered on Wikipedia. List includes men, First Nations artists from Canada (there's already List of indigenous artists of the Americas to go beyond US borders), redlinks, people of dubious Native ancestry. This list looks like it was mainly drafted from a 20-year-old book and will never be well-maintained since it competes with the numerous pre-existing, overlapping lists. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown (categories)[reply]

Keep as creator (and I am passing familiar with Native American art, thanks for the gratuitous shot there). List of Native American artists is virtually unreferenced, and who cares how old the sources for the list you'd prefer deleted are? I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion being offered here. "It competes with other stuff" is an argument I don't think I've ever seen at AfD before. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see the list as redundant. No policy based rationale given to delete this reliably sourced article. A 20 year old book does not become unreliable with age. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Add to already established lists List of Native American artists, List of Native American women of the United States, and Category:Native American women artists, which cover the same topic. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Aurornisxui list of established articles and categories. Also as someone who has studied Native American art, much of historical Native art was created by women. If the article would expand on that aspect, going into detail, I could see it as a stand alone article. However, as an article consisting of just a list, it can be merged. oncamera 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling 'native american women artists' brings up this article, but not the category. Categories are for people with some Wikipedia expertise, not for the general searching public. Certainly someone could develop this list by accessing both 'list of native american artists' and 'list of native american women of the US' and figuring out for themselves where the overlap is, but why should they have to when this specific list gets right to the question? valereee (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All entries are blue or sourced, so we don't have the typical indiscriminate-inclusion problems of lists of people. The multiple in-depth sources listed at the end of the list, about the topic as a whole rather than individual list members, makes clear that this is a notable list topic. And the list is formatted in a way that provides significant additional information that a category would not provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books discuss/cover this subject including American Women Artists: From Early Indian Times to the Present, A Song To The Creator: Traditional Arts of Native American Women of the Plateau, An Encyclopedia of Women Artists of the American West, Women Artists of Color: A Bio-critical Sourcebook to 20th Century Artists in the Americas. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and there's no real hazard of indiscriminate inclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful list on a notable subject. Deletion doesn't serve a purpose here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, and useful for the purposes of the encyclopedia and its users. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument for deletion, merge, or redirect to the category (which may be the best option re google-fu), imho, is not that it "competes with other stuff." The argument for me is that there is only a bare handful of us who actually maintain any quality control on these articles and lists, and we are constantly having to deal with the problems Yuchitown lists. Most Wikipedians don't know how to evaluate sourcing on Native American articles, so they list non-Natives, or others who don't belong on these lists, including WP:vanispamcruftisement. It's a perennial issue on WP. This will snow as a keep because the idea sounds fine, and then the same tiny group of us who do the work will be stuck with trying to keep it from being terrible. And no, I'm not asking for more general volunteers who are unfamiliar with the topics to edit the articles... not unless people are willing to learn how to evaluate sources in this particular field. WP has a serious inherent bias problem in this area, and the few of us working on this are tired and overworked. We already have a backlog of articles that need cleanup. And this will be yet another. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorbieVreccan unfortunately, lack of manpower to maintain is never a valid reason to delete an article. You can take help from relevant wikiprojects if you are overworked. --DBig Xrayᗙ 23:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about those of us in "the relevant wikiprojects." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm from the relevant wikiproject as well, WP:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America, and I am a Native American woman artist. Women artists have far greater standing in the Native American art world than they do in the mainstream art world, and segregating us out of the primary conversation of Native art is not helpful. I should have proposed merging as opposed to deletion; however, I will not be editing this list—there's far more useful and needed articles and lists on Wikipedia that demand attention. Yuchitown (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Leopardi[edit]

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

For someone with so many big name's dropped, there is virtually no actual coverage and everything is sourced to PR/primary sources/unreliable sources and highly promotional. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just self-promotion. Cabayi (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Uninvited Company 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:21, 23 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BizTech College[edit]

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

This is basically a business masquerading as a college, it's non-degree awarding ("diploma awarding" is very misleading), highly promotional and so far as I can tell nothing that would meet standard inclusion criteria and I don't believe NSCHOOL applies as it's not degree awarding. Praxidicae (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is a for-profit private career college, not a public community college. In Canada, colleges grant diplomas, and universities grant degrees. This is neither, so it is excluded from WP:NSCHOOL and must instead satisfy the criteria for private companies at WP:ORGCRIT. I can't find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to keep this. Brad v🍁 18:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing any claim to WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of the West of England, Bristol. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Students' Union at UWE[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not remotely notable enough for a standalone article and full of indiscriminate miscellany in terms of content. The reason for the PROD being contested was "as it is covered there it shouldn't be deleted", but as I opined in the PROD, the short paragraph in that article is already sufficient coverage of the Students' Union. Swarm {talk} 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here is notable, the only passable item could be the controversy over a political event, but I think that is voided by WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe the contesting user should comment, simply being mentioned elsewhere is a strange reasoning for contesting. Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm and Aloneinthewild: I added a merge tag when I contested the PROD. My meaning of "covered" was that it is covered at the University of the West of England, Bristol article so should be merged/redirected there if NN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of the West of England, Bristol which I suggested when I removed the PROD. If it is covered there it should definitely not be deleted outright. This pages has been here since 2006 and per User:Andrewa/Incoming links deleting it may break external links to it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of the West of England, Bristol. Ifnord (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2018 (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 Irish border question#Backstop proposal. I can't believe I didn't think of doing this first... (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irish backstop[edit]

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

Currently duplicates Draft:Irish backstop and needs more work so should remain in the draftspace. Irish border question#Backstop proposal already adequately covers the topic. SITH (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2018 (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 Category:Pakistani drama television series. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani dramas[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft.. GNG fails. There's no List of Indian dramas Saqib (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pakistani television series -- which has also been nominated. I'm not sure that we've got the sourcing to put a separate drama list together (though I have absolutely no problem with it). But I think it would make sense to ensure that the content is merged with the other list. matt91486 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pakistani television series and improve that article. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge bluelinked entries only to List of Pakistani television series as recommended above. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am sympathetic to a merge, but this list is much better than the general TV one. Ideally the TV series list would be developed with the same sort of detail as this list, and would then probably require a split, and a split by type of programme seems as good as any. --Michig (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Pakistani drama television series, as List of Indian television series does to Category:Indian television series. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 17 December 2018 (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 to delete, after extended discussion. bd2412 T 03:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand[edit]

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

Per current AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living Prime Ministers of Sweden and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of Australia, needless trivia of which former PM's were alive during another's tenure. Just a lot of trivia, unsourced, and doesn't offer anything substantial that List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand doesn't already Ajf773 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:2C2C:3E90:D92A:82 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same listcruft as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand with facial hair. Schwede 66 15:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia and original research Spiderone 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a spurious list of no value NealeFamily (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article conveys significant information that conforms to WP:5P1, information that would not be available in any other WP article. Without this article, one would have no way of easily figuring out that there were once 12 living PMs at a time, much less to know how frequent an occurrence that is. This information is attributable if not attributed in the words of WP:OR. The additional information - numbers alive at each moment - is easily derived by simple calculation (WP:CALC). Hence, this is by no means WP:OR. YBG (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I add that the proposal to delete this article but leave the corresponding Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States articles unnominated leaves WP open to a charge of being UK- or US-centric. YBG (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an assumption. This article was nominated based on the expected outcome of the Australian prime ministers article. All articles should be considered on their own individual merits not because something else similar exists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for the US Presidents list (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Presidents of the United States) (a strong keep) has many arguments that apply equally to this article. The arguments that do not directly apply to this one are the arguments that cite specific discussions in the popular press. This may be because such discussion has not taken place in the NZ press, but without access, I have no way of knowing. YBG (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The variation in numbers of living presidents is not shown adequately in any other article, and this article presents readers with a valuable look at the topic. Bryson 85 (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YBG's arguments. Atchom (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the age lists do not easily or clearly show the same information. Closeclouds (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Is it actually encyclopedic or just trivia? Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is refuting the assertion in the nomination that this page doesn't offer anything substantial that List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand doesn't already. YBG (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand by age then. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article tells me how many are now alive (8), but gives me no idea about how many were alive at times in the past. Is 8 significant? Has it occurred before? This cannot be easily answered by any other article. Radio NZ had a podcast and book with interviews of five former PMs; without this article it would be difficult to know that these five were at one time the only living former PMs. In 2017 four former PMs of different parties made a statement about refugees; five years from now, how can someone know if this was all of them or only some of them? It would seem that former PMs have some significance in NZ if no formal role in government. WP should fulfill its role here and provide this information on an historical basis. A paper encyclopedia would have to make editorial decisions based on limited space available, but WP:NOTPAPER. YBG (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it cannot be answered by any other article, or any independent sources (of which there are none), then it's probably not a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st point If it cannot be answered by any other article is an argument for keeping, not for deleting.

The 2nd point ... or by any independent sources ignores WP:CALC, which says Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Simple comparison of accession and death dates would seem to meet the definition of "routine" or "simple" calculations.

WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information ... The crux of this is whether this article is an indiscriminate collection of information; Ajf773 says it is, I say not. One deletionist argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:OTHER, which is to say, that because Living presidents of the United States exists, this has no bearing on whether Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand should or should not exist. I note that both WP:OTHER* links are links to essays, not links to policy. Further, the crux of the essay is that the OTHERSTUFF may exist in error, and so cannot be used as an argument to keep. As I can understand it, comparing this article to the US article is useful for several reasons. This article may be a reasonable candidate for deletion if (1) the US presidents article should not exist; or if (2) former NZ PMs are less significant than former US presidents; or if (3) former NZ PMs are less significant in NZ than former US presidents are in the US. But, as I see it, none of these three points are true, and so, the existence of the comparable US article positively argues for the inclusion of this article in our encyclopedia.

YBG (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your words "Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information ...". This is a good example of indiscriminate information. No evidence of notability has been provided other than there are similar articles that exist. For your information, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so we must assess the article on its individual merits. Ajf773 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per YGB's well-reasoned argument. It is a useful and detailed resource. The fact that this information cannot be covered in another article (without losing proportionate focus) is a strong argument for retaining this separate article. --Hazhk (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you, YGB and other commenters are missing the point that the article is unsourced and has no independent sources claiming the notability of who was alive during another PM's tenure. Notability is not inherited due to the fact a similar article on US presidents or UK prime ministers exists. By using other articles (tertiary sources) to make a calculated synthesis this is essentially trivia. Also WP:USEFUL and WP:EVERYTHING is not a valid reason for retention of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have not ignored the lack of sources. As mentioned above, the raw data is clearly attributable if not attributed; the solution to this is to add sources, not to delete the article. Furthermore, WP:EVERYTHING and WP:USEFUL are both found on an essay page clearly labeled This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. Furthermore, merely saying "it is trivia" does not make it trivia - and by the way, found in the same essay page is WP:ITSCRUFT, recommending that "Delete as trivia" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. As regards WP:NOTINHERITED, this link points to a section labeled Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. It only applies to arguments to avoid in AfDs. Particularly interesting is the hidden comment within the wikimarkup from that section . So as I understand it, the comparison to Living presidents of the United States is not to be ignored out-of-hand, nor is it to be presumed that merely the existence of the other article justifies this one. This is why I went through the three points above in comparing this article to the US Presidents one: trying make an intelligent comparison to see if there might be something to learn from the comparison. YBG (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources has quite a bearing towards the notability of this topic, surely they can be added, if significant it may help the cause of the article. It also helps determine the difference between encyclopedic content and original research. There are sources on the Living presidents of the United States article which may suggest this is a notable and non-OR topic. But we don't assume topics written similar to this are automatically acceptable based on this. That's why we take the approach where each article should be discussed on its own merits. You're right, essays aren't policy and policy comes first when deciding outcomes, including the fundamental policy of WP:NOR. I see the Australia PM article was deleted recently btw. Ajf773 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that when the US article passed AfD, the sources listed were quite skimpy, but it passed on the inherent notability of the topic without the support that has since been added. I note that most of the NZ PM list articles are like this one, attributable if not attributed. I also notice that the popular press articles referenced in the US article were written at the time when the previous record (from the Lincoln administration) was matched. I suspect that if the US stats matched the NZ stats, such articles would have been difficult if not impossible to find. But surely the notability of a list does not depend on whether the record breaking items on the list are early in the list or late in the list? As this article shows, it will take a while - or several votes of non-confidence - before the previous NZ record is broken. IMHO, nothing in this article violates WP:NOR, at least so far as I understand WP:CALC. Of course Ajf773 - as one of the active deletionists in that discussion - sees that the Aussie PM article was recently deleted. I, however, did not notice that discussion until after it was closed. I should have liked to have participated in that discussion; my participation here is in part to make up for my inaction there. YBG (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:CALC only allows for routine calculations, such as calculating someone's age, adding a table of powers to the power of two table, or inferring a team has been qualified to the next stage of a competition. I haven't found a single article that has been kept for failing WP:OR but passing WP:CALC, and I searched through all 1,157 instances of its use on Wikipedia. There's a lot of information on talk pages discussing WP:CALC, showing it's for content issues on pages and not really a notability marker - further proving the calculations here, as they stand given the sourcing, fail WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some sources that might reasonably be added to the article.
- New Zealand provides former prime ministers with annuities and a travel allowance (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11927540)
- An RNZ podcast was made of interviews of all five ex-prime ministers.(https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ninth-floor-sir-geoffrey-palmer-ck-201693) But midway through the interviews, the sitting prime minister resigned, subsequently declining to participate as the 6th ex-PM.(The 9th Floor, p. viii)
- In 2017, four of the then-six ex-PMs spoke jointly about increasing refugee immigration to NZ.(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1707/S00439/four-former-prime-ministers-join-forces-for-refugees.htm) (Source says nothing about the missing two)
  Better source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11897031. Also doesn't say anything about Jenny Shipley and John Key being missing, though it mentions in passing that Key's mother was a refugee, without identifying him as an ex-PM. added YBG (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Accession dates of all PMs: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/premiers-and-prime-ministers
- I have not found a convenient single source for the death dates; I think it best not to include individual sources for death dates; I note that they are attributable, even if not attributed in the words of WP:OR.
- As to the ordering of the dates, the intervals between dates and the specific individuals alive during those periods, this is WP:NOR, covered under the WP:CALC policy.
YBG (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added most of the references above; this at least begins to show that in the recent past former PMs are considered to have at least an informal role in NZ and some people have counted their number. The article could be further improved by eliminating most of the "statistics" section, specifically the coincidental information about the number of ex-PMs dying during a given year or during a given PMs tenure and about long gaps between PMs deaths. I deleted that information once, but my deletion was reverted by an IP editor. I hope that information is again deleted in order to futher improve the article. I will do it myself after a consensus is reached in the talk page discussion (see below). YBG (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how these references add any value to the article. They are snippets from media outlets from 2017 ... there is a whole history of content to cover, and they only just smack of WP:RECENTISM. Ajf773 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the effects of recentism, I have no access to media from 1947 to read about the death of George Forbes (New Zealand politician), but it would be very surprising to find no mention of it being the death of the last living former PM. Someone with access to NZ libraries could help by checking this out; similarly the 1950 death of Peter Fraser, and the 1968 death of Walter Nash. YBG (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participants in this discussion may have an interest in whether the article should include information about future PMs or about coincidental events like the number of deaths during a particular year or particular premiership or the time between consecutive deaths. My removal of such information was subsequently reverted by an IP editor. Whatever your opinion on this information, and whatever your opinion about the deletion of the article, I assume all editors want to improve this encyclopedia and so I encourage your participation in the discussion I started at Talk:Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand § Trimming stats. Thank you. YBG (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Sweden article AfD closed as delete. Ajf773 (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising given (1) less interest in Swedish topics at en-wiki and (2) the apparent lack of a comparable article in the Swedish WP. But certainly no reason to infer that this article should be deleted from en-wiki. YBG (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't like how so much focus has been on other articles and how they turned out, but with the addition of sources by YBG, along with their arguments, I think it makes sense to keep the article. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 10:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am inclined to delete as unencyclopedic, and I would offer the same view on the US presidents list. While some people may find this interesting, it isn't something covered by reliable sources, and seems just a rather random combination of presidents and retired presidents who happended to be still alive while the former was in office. Obviously the birth and death dates of each president, and their terms of office are relevant, but to combine them together like this seems excessive. --Michig (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YBG's arguments and evidence of notability. I argued for Keep of the Australian list on similar grounds, that the topic of living former PMs is notable, and it is not accessible from the List of PMs. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the evidence of notability please ... Ajf773 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources don't seem to talk specifically about living former Prime Ministers at different points in history and are more about discussions with and involving the current living former prime ministers than anything documenting all living prime ministers throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:1D85:6927:6EAC:2E02 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the Sweden and Australia lists, this article is original research and the sources fail WP:GNG since they don't actually cover the topic of when the prime ministers were living or not. None of the sources discuss the group as a set - they just discuss former prime ministers. SportingFlyer talk 04:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add, this article goes way beyond WP:CALC. SportingFlyer talk 04:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If articles such as Living Presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States can remain intact as is, then I can't see why this article should be any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.223 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a suitable argument to bring to AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF itself declares: This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

That essay begins by saying In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. So, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself declares that making such comparisons can be valid or invalid. Some contributors to this AfD believe that it is helpful to make comparisons to similar pages that exist, others do not, and quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when anyone mentions the US Presidents or VPs articles. Some contributors to this AfD have mentioned similar pages that have been deleted, generally without overtly claiming that a different deletion supports this deletion.

WP:OTHERSTUFF goes on to state When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. *** Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. This is why believe it is helpful to compare this article to the US articles and to take the 5 pillars into consideration.

Furthermore, the OTHERSTUFF essay itself includes WP:SSEFAR (some stuff exists for a reason) which says This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. As I understand this, it means that the OTHERSTUFF essay is not a reason to completely disregard the presence or absence of other articles. Likewise, one cannot merely cite the existance of US OTHERSTUFF as a reason for retention, nor can one merely note the deletion of Australian or Swedish OTHERSTUFF and hold that as a reason to blindly delete the article currently under consideration.

YBG (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly correct, and is exactly what the unsigned IP did. The conversation needs to be about this article and whether or not it is sourced properly. But the fact another similar article which is sourced properly was kept is informative, and two other similar articles which were not sourced properly is also informative - and there haven't been any arguments here that say this particular article is properly sourced. (I'm happy to change my vote to keep if you can find a source which definitively shows this isn't WP:OR, but none of the keep votes to date have done that - the sources still talk about New Zealand prime ministers, but don't show the notability of the overall topic.) SportingFlyer talk 03:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per YBG's well constructed arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.2.16 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user with just one edit is such a valuable contribution to this article, NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPs are human too (an essay, not a policy) reminds us that As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia. Because of misconceptions, edits by unregistered users are mistakenly reverted and their contributions to talk pages discounted. This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects. YBG (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP's could also act as sockpuppets. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand why many people dislike trivia on Wikipedia, but IMHO it can be OK, provided that

It's correct information, and kept up-to-date in a timely manner,
It's not misleading in any way, and
It doesn't distract from more 'serious' information.

All of these apply here. In general, with online storage being cheap, the burden of proof for deleting a Wikipedia page should be on the people who propose its deletion. I don't think they've done so here. Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It relies on WP:CALC for the basis of its content
WP:DOESN'THARM
again WP:DOESN'THARM

You haven't actually given any valid reason for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I believe that the burden of proof for deleting a Wikipedia page should be on the people who propose its deletion, not on those who propose keeping it. I guess that makes me an 'inclusionist'. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Narayan Chaudhary[edit]

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

A longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known. The few sources on him exclusively discuss his purported age and tell us almost nothing about him, and the overlinking in this article is a failed effort to puff this up. Such details are best handled in a list or table entry on the Longevity myths article. There's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOPAGE. The article says very little about this obvious fraudster. He scammed some media coverage and honors from a king, but the article doesn't say much else about him. Maybe deserves a mention at Longevity myths, but nothing more. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are lots of unsubstantiated age claims. We need better sourcing to make articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These articles lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. We are not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs. Rzvas (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be like hoax and fake advertisement. Anyone can claim there age but government has not declared yet.Azkord (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic passes WP:GNG as it stands, with 2 pieces of substantive coverage in reliable sources(India Today[5] and AP[6]), plus a 103-word obit[7] in the LA Times (also a reliable source). As usual, the nominator @The Blade of the Northern Lights makes no claim to have done any of the required WP:BEFORE research to see if there is more coverage, let alone identify possible sources in Nepal which are unlikely to show on a google search.

I note that the nominator does comment on notability, so I hope that is accepted. Instead, the nomination asserts that this a longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known and few sources on him exclusively discuss his purported age and tell us almost nothing about him. Sadly, both those central pillars of the nomination are blatantly false, because the 1558-word India Today article Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Narayan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands goes into considerable detail about his life, and interestingly about how he felt about his claimed longevity. (Much like a Struldbrugg, it seems).

The falsity of those central planks would have been been evident to the nominator if they had even examined the existing sources before nominating, as they should have done pr WP:BEFORE. I trust that this was not an intentional deceit, and I hope that the nominator will demonstrate their good faith applying strikeout to these false claims in the nomination.

The invocation by @Newshunter12 of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED is also misplaced. This topic is notable because of a single attribute, whereas WP:BIO1E is about a single event ... and any topic which meets GNG is not claiming inherited notability. So those arguments should be discounted.

Similarly, the veracity or otherwise of Chaudhary's claims does not remove his notability; it merely changes the ways in which the article is written and categorised. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", and this article is deficient in that it does not even mention the lack of verification. However, that is grounds for improving the article, not for deleting it.

That leaves us solely with WP:NOPAGE. Nothing in that guideline recommends deleting an article which satisfies GNG. There is no precedent in any other topic area for the systematic merger of articles on notable people to a list.

I am concerned that this is another in a series of XFD nominations prepared at WT:LONGEVITY#AfDs_of_individual_biographies and pursued as a tag-team by members of that project on the basis of what I can most kindly describe as severe misunderstandings of most of the policies and guidelines which they cite. The members of that project appear to have agreed among themselves that articles on people notable for longevity are inherently and axiomatically "cruft", and that GNG is insufficient. They have no policy basis for doing so, and appear to have decided that their own overt hostility to the topic should override the editorial judgement of respected major news sources. That is blatant POV-pushing, and it is just as incompatible with Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV as the inverse view pushed by of the fans of the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) that the mere fact of longevity create a bypass around WP:GNG.

I have supported the deletion or merger of articles on non-notable supercentenarians, and I will continue to do so .. but this is different. This is part of a systematic campaign to eliminate articles on demonstrably notable supercentenarians, which extends even to WP:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian). WP:LONGEVITY's cleanup campaign has taken a wrong turn into organised disruption.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's 3 news articles. I, anyway, don't see that as evidence of sustained coverage. Furthermore, they tell us... he lived for some time, had kids, and died. Where's the page? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That page is offline. Nepal is still largely relied upon offline media sources such as newspapers. see WP:BIAS

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Man Dies at Reported Age of 141". Associated Press Archives. AP. 21 April 1998. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
2. Thapa, Vijay Jung (15 October 1996). "Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Naryahan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands". India Today. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
3. "Bir Narayan Chaudhary, 141; Nepal's Oldest Man". LA Times. 24 April 1998. Retrieved 12 December 2014.
4. The India Today article verifies that Bir Narayan Chaudhary has received television coverage. "After recent articles and coverage from Nepal TV, today a stream of visitors line up to gawk at Chaudhary."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bir Narayan Chaudhary to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press article provides significant coverage of the subject. The India Today magazine article provides 1,552 words of coverage about the subject.
Bir Narayan Chaudhary is a Nepali man. India Today is based in India. That an Indian magazine printed 1,552 words about Bir Narayan Chaudhary is substantial international coverage and strongly establishes he is notable.
Cunard (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Another longevitycruft article that presents farfetched accounts of extreme old age with minimal skepticism. Wikipedia should not be uncritically reporting obvious falsehoods. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TNT again. The essay doesnt say what you appear to be using it for. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It does. Don't be condescending. Reyk _YO! 12:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, noting that WP:TNT redirects to essay WP:Blow it up and start over which is not a Wikipedia deletion policy. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many delete votes here, which appear to be clearly prejudiced and feigning ignorance about the coverage in reliable media. It is not our job to decide if this is falsehood, that is the job of newspapers and reliable media.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India Today: Being the oldest-ever is a record Bir Narayan Chaudhary neither wants nor understands This, detailed coverage in the widely published magazine, India today is reliable, significant and independent coverage. It also notes that subject got coverage in newspapers and TV media.
Secrets of the What is it Like to Live for a Century and Which of Us Will Survive to Find Out?, By John Withington Reaktion Books, 2017 also covers the subject.

These sources in accordance with other arguments put by User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Cunard make a convincing pitch to keep this article based on GNG. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address the WP:TNT concerns, I added these two sentences to the lead paragraph:
Bir was unable to substantiate his longevity claims with documentation. Since he did not have a birth certificate, The Guinness Book of Records did not identify him as the oldest person in the world.
Cunard (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, but the article is not about the claim per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhyanalinga[edit]

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

Non notable temple owned by Isha Foundation and promoted by Jaggi Vasudev. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The temple lacks coverage in reliable media, that is independent of sites promoted by the Isha foundation. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found a couple of book mentions:1, 2 but they are written by either the Isha Foundation or the Sadhguru himself; so therefore primary. Fails WP:GNG. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of secondary sources Spiderone 09:29, 22 December 2018 (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources, all coverage appears to be in sources affiliated with the LDS Church (and thus with the subject), does not meet WP:GNG. It was deleted with more or less the same justification last time it came to AfD, but back then construction had not even begun. Construction is still underway according to LDS sources, but it's further along so it didn't seem appropriate to nominate for speedy deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two secondary sources to the article to increase the coverage by reliable, unrelated sources. I suspect there are also some sources that exist in French that are actually from the DRC, but I don't know French and they may only be in print, not online. I will keep searching to see if I can find more to add. One of the reasons I have added this article is that currently most temples have articles even if they are only announced. While I don't think those temples ought to have articles yet, this temple is substantially complete. Glennfcowan (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of the currently cited sources are independent, they all seem to be explicitly affiliated with the LDS Church. Additionally, just because the church building exists does not make it notable. You may be right about there being sources in French, and would appreciate seeing those. You're welcome to look harder for sources in French, though. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the construction webpage, it is not totally independent since they were paid to design the building and I didn't think about that angle. I do think that the churchofjesuschristtemples.org is an independent source. As far as I can tell, it is run by someone who gathers information about each temple from around the world. The site says at the bottom: This website is NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does that count as independent?

They're nominally independent, but I don't see any documentation of their editorial policies that would indicate that they are reliable. It appears to be a very pretty blog. Additionally, while the website is not owned by the LDS Church, the content is exclusively sourced to LDS Church press releases, so the article's still not independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that every press release makes it on the site, but I find that it has way more data and pictures than the LDS church ever releases. I think the author goes to great lengths to find people near every temple to get pictures and updates. I don't know how that site gets people in such a wide range of locations. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Glennfcowan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not finding anything when searched in French. You're wlecome to search at the websites listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo#Library but I don't think there's anything to be found. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC) See below. Still seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON but I don't feel that strongly about about it. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. It is a bit of a challenge since I bet most news sources in the DRC are hard copy. I am going to keep looking. Glennfcowan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles on every single temple. To delete this one would just add to the systemic bias excluding articles on things in Africa in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added additional sources. I suspect there are additional sources available from Kinshasa papers, but they are probably not online.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another article. This adds up to sources that in no way are controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covering this temple. As I said, there are almost certainly some from DR Congo. Unless people have done searches that cover all languages used in DR Congo, which is not just French, I am not convinced people have exhausted possible sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The temple is based in Kinshasa. Aside from from French, the only other languages spoken in the city are Kikongo and Lingala. I highly doubt you will find anything in Swahili or Tshiluba language sources, which are spoken much further east. I do not know of very many Lingala or Kikongo language sources in the Congo anyway (French is the lingua franc), and if you really want to contend that coverage exists in the Congolese sources, those listed in WikiProject DRC need to be checked. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've checked most of the news sources listed at WikiProject DRC and this is the only one I've found, Eglise de Jésus-Christ des Saints des derniers jours : Elder Neil L. Andersen lance les travaux de construction du Temple en RDC, a reprinted article from one of the Kinshasa newspapers. It does announce the construction project, but its mostly a feature on the Mormon elder overseeing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - well that still adds up to 3rd party coverage. We have that in multiple ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an additional source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have identified other sources such as this [8] and [9] and [10]. Here is a post about the temple and reactions to it [11]. Then there is the Norman Kamosi connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasonings in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newport Beach California Temple; a new temple building in Africa certainly would be notable on the face alone going by how few temples are on that continent. Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I think the discussion above misses the point slightly. The sources mentioned appear to be publicizing the existence of the LDS in the Congo for the benefit of American followers of the same religion - I am not convinced that this is enough to establish notability for the Church building in its own right. As Indybeetle points out, there is barely any coverage from the Congo itself and none in "serious" academic sources. Since most Congolese news-sources are online (Le Potentiel, Radio Okapi etc.) this is quite a damning argument. Personally I think the best option would be to merge the current content into the current stub that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No the articles in question are explicitly about this building. There is no requirement that the coverage be from the country where the temple is. In fact in other discussions people have tried to use the fact that coverage only comes from the local of the temple to argue to delete the article. It sometimes seems that people will come up with any argument possible to seek to delete coverage on a temple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment considering there is mention in articles publsied by The Interpretor, the claim of no scholarly coverage is not sustainable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by geographic region#Africa, or Merge to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as suggested by Brigade Piron. Right now, there is not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and WP:OSE does not appear to be a very good argument in this case.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources coverage that shows that the temple passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Per WP:G6 unnecessary disambiguation (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Robertson (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Obsolete page, because Neil Robertson (snooker player) identified as primary topic (and renamed as such) with hatnote pointing to Neil Robertson (mathematician) Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just requested a speedy deletion as an unnnecessary disambiguation page. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brent H. Nielson[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, quotations and routine announcements in independent, reliable sources, which do not equate to notability. Furthermore, available primary source coverage is not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non LDS sources found were merely quotes from him in connection to something church related. Google news search found nothing that talked about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people), the relevant notability guideline for this person. This person has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are unrelated to him. Non-LDS sources that are available don't that mention him in more than a passing way. - tucoxn\^talk 19:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William W. Parmley[edit]

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

Per source searches, a non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very very high citation counts on Google Scholar, which passes WP:PROF#C1, and was formerly the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, a major medical journal, satisfying WP:PROF#C8. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Keep per source/expand by IntoThinAir.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability has been established, and despite a major need for cleanup, it doesn't warrant deletion on any other grounds. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple careers[edit]

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

Rambling and ill-sourced essay, of unclear topicality, that has never been a good article; started like this in 2005, hasn't improved in 13 years. If there could possibly be a Wikipedia article on this topic, this doesn't supply material worth keeping for it - and if there could, it should have happened in thirteen years. PROD removed, but without improvement. David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 99% of Wikipedia's articles are not yet of good quality but our policy is to keep and improve them: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." This topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it. A selection of works follows and notice that they use a variety of titles and terms to describe the topic. We should therefore cast our net wide in searching for more content to summarise.

One Person / Multiple Careers: The Original Guide to the Slash Career
The Encore Career Handbook: How to Make a Living and a Difference in the Second Half of Life
Plan for five careers in a lifetime
We must help workers prepare for multiple careers
Preparing for Multiple Careers
Why You Should Have (at Least) Two Careers
The Episodic Career: How to Thrive at Work in the Age of Disruption
Pivot: The Only Move That Matters Is Your Next One

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while sorting: Without pointing to any specific policy, I believe that this is a sad yet well-known society topic that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should have a detailled, informative article about. It is unlikely to fail notability. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep: Okay, meeting the General Notability Guideline is easy here. Example for a German book that covers the topic in detail: Gulder, Angelika (2011-08-15). Aufgewacht!: Wie Sie das Leben Ihrer Träume finden Mit Lebenstraum-Navigator (in German) (1 ed.). Frankfurt, M. New York, NY: Campus Verlag. ISBN 9783593393520., found via Schwertfeger, Von Bärbel. "Karrierewechsel: Vorsicht, Falle!". ZEIT ONLINE (in German). Retrieved 2018-12-17. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Yes, the article would benefit from copy editing, inline citations, etc. etc., but the topic itself passes WP:GNG, as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 23 December 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snorelift[edit]

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

All the web refs I can see for this are derived from the article itself or clearly promotional. Mccapra (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources on google to support GNG. Natureium (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG for lack of secondary sources coverage that are significant coverage. Was not able to find much in my search as well. Reads like a WP:OR.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it probably does exist, but as far as I can find, sources that would support notability do not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2018 (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Panday[edit]

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

None of the citations gives him more than a passing mention; in fact, two of them are more about the actor Nikhil Upreti than about him. The prize he won in 2016, while doubtless welcome, was 150,000 NPR which equates to 1,300 USD. WP:TOOSOON at best. Fails WP:DIRECTOR, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG.

(NB created and chiefly edited by a WP:SPA.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR and as per nominator. Azkord (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article in its present form is promotional and could not be salvaged even if the subject were notable. Uninvited Company 21:01, 20 December 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Creek (Washington)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, with the creator citing WP:GEOLAND. This stream is short, in a rural region, and has few (if any) sources that aren't in database form. GEOLAND states that "named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Clearly not the case here, where the only non-database source is a statewide etymology book. Sounder Bruce 06:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This one's one of the most borderline geographic feature articles I can remember. You've got sources like [12] (not RS), a mention here about road construction in 1909 [13], another mention with railroad sidings [14], and atlases/topographic maps where it's clearly demarcated. There's also a road called "Kent Creek Road" with crime reports. A newspapers.com search (I don't have access) brings up 20 results for " "Kent Creek" Newport " which is the nearest town along with Dalkena. Those sources are definitely impeachable, but GEOLAND isn't that high of a standard and other sources might exist, hence the weak keep. SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This would just eke by the guidelines currently being discussed at WP Rivers by having a basin of approximately 13 sq. km., it is present in the National Hydrography Dataset which is where I calculated that from. Kmusser (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant natural features such as the large basin, enough sources to meet the low bar for WP:GEO, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For sources, see This and this, and evidence of a cormorant colony[15]. There's enough information for a keepable stub. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 23:31, 21 December 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Transit fleet[edit]

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

Consists entirely of unsourced trivia split off from Connecticut Transit. If unsourced content were removed, no viable standalone article would remain. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, I find most of these transport rosters to be overly detailed messes. To state that a on agency uses certain models and how many of each if it can be sourced is fine, but all of this trivia is just rivet counting. This is an encyclopedia, not a spotters' guide. (My reversions were simply an objection to process, not content, which I agree is unneeded and trivial.) oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Bus WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, IMO the article could be saved by an editor who wanted to do so, but I have no desire to try given recent events I've had with certain transportation aficionados. At this point it's a total re-write... maybe someone else will rewrite it from scratch without all of the original research. Someday. Markvs88 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I've stated elsewhere, fleet rosters are often fancruft and serve as an attractive nuisance for unsourced, unencyclopedic edits. I do think it's possible to write about rolling stock and such without losing balance, but it requires good sources. I still think there needs to be a discussion somewhere, at least within WikiProject Trains, about the appropriate level of detail for rosters. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A metro area's transit roster is big enough. Trying to write about the fleet of an entire state which has many unsourced diversions such as 'this bus replaced one that was in a major crash' goes into 'find something else to do' territory that even the transit authority itself would never track in detail. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Connecticut Transit can be expanded if needed. Capitals00 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2018 (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 Nanubhai Vakil. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alam Ara (1973 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources for the 1973 film not found, unlike Alam Ara, the 1931 film. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 09:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG in both article (unreferenced) and outside search. Really surprised that this one survived for how long it did so far. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources to support notability not found. to Director Nanubhai Vakil, who made a long list of non-bluelinked films.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete !voter Trilifendi does not even have the reason why deleting the article, and apart from that the consensus is clear that Joana meets WP:NACTOR and even WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joana de Verona[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable Portuguese actress. Quis separabit? 22:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was awarded Best Actress [16] and was featured in a national portuguese newspaper [17].

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep More example of coverage: [18], [19], [20], [21], which pushes her of the notability edge in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trillfendi (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason? Is there any analysis that lead to this conclusion? Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears sufficiently notable from the coverage she has received. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, very prolific actress who easily meets WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") as she had very significant series regurlar roles in A Única Mulher, Ouro Verde (TV series) (staring role) and Valor da Vida and a lead role in the highly critically acclaimed and award-winning How to Draw a Perfect Circle. And she's a Best Supporing Actress Prémio Autores award winner plus a Lisbon & Estoril Film Festival Best Actress winner and a Sophia Awards Best Supporting Actress nominee. Adding the coverage found by Cthomas3 and Pax:Vobiscum, this is a no-brainer. Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2018 (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 Sue Hendra. Relevant content may be merged from the page history. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda and the Alien[edit]

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

No indication this book meets criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. No major awards won, and not much significant discussion in multiple reliable sources (93 Ghits and these are mostly about the TV show). ... discospinster _talk 00:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sue Hendra as first choice, and Keep as second choice. I think the book is borderline notable with a well-known author and the corresponding TV series (which provides decent sources such as [22] [23]). But that's still a bit short. Pichpich (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Sue Hendra. Vorbee (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2018 (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 for keeping this article . (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liesel Litzenburger[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. She has written two books that rank around 7-8million on Amazon. Little independent coverage found. Most of the ELs in the article are even DLs. MB 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AUTHOR says nothing about Amazon ranking, but it does describe notability for someone who has created "a well-known work or collective body of work" that has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". So, an author who has written multiple books that have been reviewed in not only Publishers Weekly [24] and Kirkus Reviews [25] but also The New York Times [26], the Chicago Tribune (Pomerantz, Sharon (August 13, 2006). "Novel examines the lives of broken souls struggling to connect". Chicago Tribune. p. 14.8.), and Entertainment Weekly (Armstrong, Jennifer (March 2, 2007). "Now You Love Me". Entertainment Weekly. No. 923. p. 72.) would certainly seem to qualify under WP:AUTHOR#3. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve AfD is not cleanup. In addition to the URLs mentioned by Bakazaka, Martha Stewart has a short-short by LL, calls her a "prize-winning novelist."[27] Let's do the BEFORE before an AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources identified above by Bakazaka, it appears she easily passes criteria #3 of WP:AUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discovery of the sources. — MapSGV (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Amazon ranking was meant to suggest there is no "well known body of work". Pointing out the number of DLs in the article is to suggest the author is not that well known either as there tends to be an obvious correlation. If a keep is based solely upon "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then such "reviews" should be examined in detail. The "reviews" in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews don't seem to be reviews at all; they lack comment by the "reviewer" and seem to be just a synopsis of the book - more of a press-release by the publisher for promotional purposes. The The New York Times review gives some actual commentary on the book, so that should count. I can't make judgement on the others since there are no links given. The Martha Stewart "short-short" is written by the author, the only thing said by Stewart is the rather vague mention that she is "a prize-winning novelist" without explaining just what this prize is. All I see here that is one review in the NYT and a lot of self-promotion. I don't think this is keeping with the intent of WP:AUTHOR at all.MB 15:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "self-promotion," social media presence and other outreach to readers are typical of many notable authors (e.g. Cory Doctorow and Neil Gaiman). Self promotion is not a character flaw or evidence for lack of notability. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a "review" is really a press-release in disguise, is clearly promotional, is not independent (being a synopsis provided by the author/publisher), how can that be evidence of notability (WP:NOTPROMO)). The fact that notable authors promote themselves does not make all authors that do so notable. MB 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Classic case of failure of Nom to run a WP:BEFORE. Articles just needs sourcing, improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desh Doot[edit]

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

Non-notable book GILO A&E⇑ 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Book by redlinked writer, "referenced" exclusively to GoodReads and Amazon with not a shred of reliable source coverage provided at all — and there's a potential conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username ("LKPI") to the name of the book's cover artist in the infobox. It's also worth noting that the page creator also created a whole stank nest of implausible and improperly-named new categories just to contain it — which isn't a deletion criterion for the article in and of itself, but does suggest that they're probably here for reasons other than actually collaborating in building an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Spiderone 09:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. Ifnord (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2018 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Con Simulator[edit]

(Find video game sources: "The Con Simulator" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Promotional article and fails WP:NOT. No context for notability. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep^Talk 02:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless foreign language sources are vetted) as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. IndieGames looks okayish though. chuapp looks extensive, but I don't know anything about the site. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a case of a possible WP:TOOSOON. I also found https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/05/05/like-conventions-cash-con-simulator/ but it is not a WP:SIGCOV source to count as well as the Chuapp one (overall the game itself does not seem to be the primary focus of the article and stays as a passing mention). At this state it sadly fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2018 (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. Since this was a lengthy and contentious discussion, I think it may be helpful for my closing rationale to be laid out in detail. To begin with, I am entirely disregarding comments by a blocked sock, !votes from IPs/new accounts that clearly have an agenda to advance, and a !vote that is identical to ones made by the user at other AfDs.

Nonetheless, there is consensus here to keep. WP:PROF is independent from WP:GNG; a scholar needs meet only one to be considered notable. A convincing argument has been made that Ravnskov meets criterion 1 of WP:PROF, on the basis of his citation record: this argument has not been convincingly refuted. Any argument about whether or not he meets GNG is therefore a non sequitur.

Some editors have argued to delete this on the basis that Ravnskov is a fringe theorist. That fact itself is not a valid reason to delete; notability is independent of the POV of an individual. We do need to have enough intellectually independent content about an individual to write an article about them that conforms to NPOV. A convincing argument to delete on these grounds would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral piece about Ravskov (even if such a piece is a stub): no such demonstration has been made.

The current state of the article leaves much to be desired, but while WP:TNT is sometimes a persuasive argument, AfD is ultimately not meant for cleanup. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with via protection; editors pushing a fringe POV need to be dealt with at ANI or elsewhere. Deletion is not a solution for our difficulties in producing neutral content. Vanamonde (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uffe Ravnskov[edit]

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

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

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

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

I'm finding some papers authored by the subject, and one or two passing mentions, but that's it. E Eng 16:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I, too, have searched for more than passing mentions in reliable sources, but have not been successful. GNG not met. Strikerforce^Talk 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After additional review, I believe that DGG makes a valid point below. In its current state, the article needs substantial work to improve references. But, I think it can be rescued. So, I am a hesitant Keep on this one. Strikerforce^Talk 15:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBIO and WP:NSCHOLAR. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research on the article. Nothing on Google books or on JSTOR, lack of medical papers and secondary sources that discuss his fringe ideas. Some minor newspaper coverage but not enough to establish an entire article about him. Because of lack of reliable sources would be best to delete. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some sources exclusively shares his views [28] but still not convincing enough for passing GNG. Qualitist (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr Ravnskov is a published scientist in both the Lancet and the https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k946/rr-5 BMJ On what basis are you suggesting deleting his contribution to an important field of debate? _~~Amandazz100 — Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Of the three references given by Amandazz100, two (Lancet and BMJ) are only correspondence, i.e. letters to the journals. The other is an actual paper, however this is published in BMJ Open, which is a pay-to-publish journal. Swampf0etus (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed this edit by Amandazz100 [29], she had already voted once so voting twice is not aloud. Also this was nothing more than disruptive spam. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the voting twice was not aloud. It was in writing. E Eng 21:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I can find are self-published sources and mentions in passing. This topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Brad v🍁 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion has been advertised by Malcolm Kendrick and his associates on various social media platforms. Likely there will be an increase of SPA accounts voting here. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I got the idea to nominate this guy from predictions, in that blog, that "Uffe will be next". It was very helpful of them. We could probably get a list of other likely nonnotables by looking the blog over carefully. E Eng 00:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage of the person in reliable sources, so no biography is possible. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV-pushers to peddle their fringe theories disguised as a biography. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how you could possibly delete this page by claiming that there are only passing references or self-published work. Simply going to ^[1] shows that he has been published in prominent scientific journals going back to the 1970s and not just open or pay journals but the journal of Clinical Epidemiology, The Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, Mayo Clinic Proceedings and more. In the 1970s he was the first to isolate a new glycoprotein found in diseased livers ^[2]. He is clearly a notable academic, and one who rigorously challenges mainstream beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC) — 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (UTC).[reply]

So, now having found those references, why don't you be bold and add them to the article? Remember, the AfD process exists to not only discuss whether an article should remain, but also to improve the article in the hopes of preventing deletion. When editors find sources that are appropriate during the process of evaluating an article, they should be added. Strikerforce^Talk 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So to be clear YOU are entitled to continue having your say by removing other people's contributions to the talk and determining that they are spam. is there a rule where people are allowed to only talk once? Whereas I am not allowed to contribute further information regarding his status or the quality of his referenced work based as it is on rigorous and extensive science. ? You could have deleted my " vote" instead you deleted numeorus references to his writings in peer reviewed scientific journals of repute plus many references to the fact that his stated position has ignificant scientific legs actoss a huge scientific base as demonstrated in the extensive List I posted. Your approach to science appears very odd. Unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 — Amandazz100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I didn't remove anything. I properly formatted both the !vote (we use the term "Keep", not "Do NOT Delete") and the external links that you included in your comments. I changed nothing, as far as the material being presented. The {{spa}} tag is rather common in situations like this where it is clear that canvassing has occurred. Duplicate !votes by the same person are not permitted. You are, of course, allowed to comment more than once, but not in the form of a !vote. You must instead either place "Comment" at the front of the material presented or just present the material outright. Again, I will reiterate that the links you provided were not deleted. Strikerforce^Talk 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you please consider restoring the formatting of your links that I had previously used, for readability purposes. Strikerforce^Talk 17:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this edit she made earlier today [30], it was 35,003 bytes of text, a massive spam list of 116 publications many of which not relevant. Such text is too excessive and does not contribute to this discussion IMO. I don't think any admin will restore it due to size but if I have done wrong in removing it I apologise. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest placing that text Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Uffe Ravnskov here, then. Strikerforce^Talk 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professor Ravnskov is a distinguished researcher, writer and teacher. An attempt to delete his entry is likely to be seen as the next strike against anyone daring to question current orthodoxy in the context of the diet-heart AKA lipid hypothesis, after Dr Kendrick was deleted. This smells like a determined campaign… perhaps EEng and Skeptic from Britain should now consider moving on to attack Tim Noakes and Richard D. Feinman. N.B. I did not come to this page as part of a campaign to defend Prof. Ravnskov, but because I wished to confirm his credentials for a curious student of mine. Describing me as any kind of puppet would be silly. Anarchie76 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. At a glance Noakes may be notable (hard to tell because many of the sources seem iffy) but Feinman seems not to be. I've nominated him -- see WP:Articles for deletion/Richard D. Feinman. E Eng 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did the same for Malcolm Kendrick [31] Your vote keep though is not based on any Wikipedia policy. If he is such a distinguished researcher then list 10 reliable secondary references that mention Ravnskov, there is literally nothing out there. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go (all from peer-reviewed publications):

1) Bengt G. Johansson & Uffe Ravnskov (1972) The Serum Level and Urinary Excretion of α2-Microglobulin, β2-Microglobulin and Lysozyme in Renal Disease, Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 6:3, 249-256, DOI: 10.3109/00365597209132096

2) Proteinuria After Human Renal Transplantation: I. Urinary Excretion of α2-Microglobulin (Retinol-binding Protein), β2-Microglobulin, Lysozyme and Albumin (1972) https://doi.org/10.3109/00365597409132815

3) α1-Microglobulin, a new low molecular weight plasma protein.(1976) https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(76)90142-X

4) Renal handling of Zn-alpha2-glycoprotein as compared with that of albumin and the retinol-binding protein (1976) https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI108371

5) Gel chromatography on Sephadex gels with narrow particle size distribution obtained by dry elutriation (1976) https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90491-7

6) Exposure to Organic Solvents—A Missing Link in Poststreptococcal Glomerulonephritis? (1978) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1978.tb14888.x

7) Uffe Ravnskov, Björn Forsberg, Staffan Skerfving (1979) Glomerulonephritis and Exposure to Organic Solvents, A Case‐Control Study, Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume205, Issue 1‐6, 575-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1979.tb06106.x

8) Influence of Hydrocarbon Exposure on the Course of Glomerulonephritis (1986) https://doi.org/10.1159/000183707

9) Glomerular, tubular and interstitial nephritis associated with non‐steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Evidence of a common mechanism (1999) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00869.x

10) Vulnerable Plaque Formation from Obstruction of Vasa Vasorum by Homocysteinylated and Oxidized Lipoprotein Aggregates Complexed with Microbial Remnants and LDL Autoantibodies (2009) Review and Hypothesis: Uffe Ravnskov and Kilmer S. McCully Ann Clin Lab Sci Winter 2009 39:3-16

Sorry to interfere with your witch-hunt. Anarchie76 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchie76: These are all articles written by the subject. Notability is established using sources written about the subject. Can you come up with any of those? Brad v🍁 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jesus, get a clue, will you? We need sources about the subject, not by the subject. Christ. E Eng 00:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to users arguing about "witch-hunts", they do not understand Wikipedia policies but they are very quick to criticize Wikipedia. They advertised this on reddit [32]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Quick to criticise Wikipedia"? I've been a Wikipedia user and financial contributor since 2004, and an editor since 2006, though admittedly not nearly as active as I should be, since I have many other calls on my time. I have until now NEVER criticised Wikipedia, and indeed am NOT now doing so. Instead, I am focusing on what appears to be a witch-hunt (and no, I didn't learn the term from Reddit, but from my primary school in 1966).

I'd like to reply first of all with a few secondary references:

1) "A Skeptical View of Cholesterol Phobia", Marshall E. Deutsch. http://nowscape.com/atheism/articles/Skeptical_View_of_Cholesterol.pdf

2) Michael Gurr (Mike Gurr) "Lipids in Nutrition and Health: A Reappraisal". By M I Gurr. (1999, 2009) PJ Barnes & Associates

3) Dr Chris Masterjohn (book review): http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The-Cholesterol-Myths.html

4) '"Misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials, and [...] ignoring numerous contradictory observations" are at the root of a half-century-long assumption that may be entirely wrong, says new research', Ana Sandou, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323235.php

5) Laurence D. Chalem http://thrivewithdiabetes.blogspot.com/2016/06/credit-is-due-to-uffe-ravnskov-et-al.html

6) In "Circulation of Knowledge: Explorations in the History of Knowledge", Johan Östling, Erling Sandmo, David Larsson Heidenblad, Anna Nilsson Hammar, Kari Hernæs Nordberg. Chapter 1: by Laura Hollsten, https://books.google.fr/books?id=pQBNDwAAQBAJ

7) "Cholesterol Skeptics And The Bad News About Statin Drugs", Napoli M., http://www.healthyskepticism.org/global/library/item/1260

8) "The Problem With Statins" (2017) Mid-day.com, https://www.mid-day.com/articles/the-problem-with-statins/18347153

9) Response to the Quackwatch website, with a profile of Prof. Ravnskov: http://doctorwatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/next-md-doctor-watch-introduces-you-to.html

10) "Does Cholesterol Matter?", Discover Magazine. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/greatest-unanswered-medical-questions

Then, a quote: "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."

—Carl Sagan, “The Demon-Haunted World"

Unfortunately, a major bamboozling has been the notion that cholesterol is harmful. This has been driven by the gigantic profits made from statin drugs.

And, finally, a (rhetorical) question: How many peer-reviewed journals (which did not then exist) would have published papers by Alfred Wegener or Semelweiss? The paucity of references to Uffe Ravnskov in the peer-reviewed literature is an indictment, not of the inadequacy of Ravnskov's work, but of the blinkered attitudes of the star chamber constituted by the peer-reviewed journals themselves. Challengers to orthodoxy, especially when faced with entrenched financial interests, are bound to encounter massive obstacles, and I can't help remembering Max Planck's dictum about progress in science and death. Anarchie76 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid most of those sources are not reliable. Blogspots are rarely used on Wikipedia and some of those do not specifically mention Ravnskov, for example this [33]. We can not use sources that do not mention Ravnskov because it is original research otherwise. I am not convinced about the other sources. You might want to take a look at WP:OR and WP:RS. And statins are not as evil as you make out, this systematic review found "Statins can lower LDL cholesterol concentration by an average of 1.8 mmol/l which reduces the risk of IHD events by about 60% and stroke by 17%." [34]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeptic from Britain: You said that the Discover Magazine reference did not mention Ravnskov. It does——on page 2 of the piece. As for statins "not being as evil" as I make out, I have barely mentioned them. That discussion is not really germane to this page or this topic, but if you wish to inform yourself more fully, you could do worse than visit [35]. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't seen anything here or in quick searches since this was posted that would satisfy WP:NPROF. Everything at the article is just basic stuff from anyone who's done research, gone to graduate school, etc. Being a WP:FRINGEBLP, I haven't seen any sources showing fringe notability by sources putting their work in context either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the new comments up to Dec 16, I'm still in a delete position. It's usually best to avoid Google Scholar for things like an h-index and stick to more reliable databases like Web of Science, which doesn't really give anything out of the ordinary in terms of NPROF. The three most highly cited papers are at 241, 100, and 93, with the remaining at somewhat normal levels. I'd put that in a WP:TOOSOON category if it was in my field, and that has an even lower bar than something like medicine. Everything here just reads as normal academic researcher who had some views out of line with the prevailing science. Going on citation count alone is always a problem in AfD discussions though and should never go beyond supplementary decisions of notability though. I'm just not seeing the secondary sources needed to write the basic content that establishes notability though. Even the journal letter titled "On criticism in bio-medical research – A tribute to Uffe Ravnskov" mentioned below ironically only gives passing mention to this person when you read the full article. At best, this BLP doesn't pass the average professor test of NPROF. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In such a case as this, we should be careful when evaluating the subject's citation record to check WP:PROF#C1. Basically, our standards for biomedical sources apply, and relying upon Google Scholar (which tallies everything it can find) is a bad move. Going by Web of Science, which records peer-reviewed publications, his h-index is only 20, which in this field isn't enough to stand out as "widely cited". So, the subject fails WP:PROF#C1, and I can't find anything that indicates a pass on any of the other criteria, either. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uffe Ravnskov has commented on this [36], funny stuff. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! Surprise! Attack a man's life's work and reputation, and expect him to keep quiet about it? Really? Anarchie76 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an attack on the man's work or his reputation. Notability guidelines are clear, it's not what the academic publishes but what is published about the academic. The subject fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Ifnord (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_vis=1&q=uffe+ravnskov&btnG=
^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000989817690142X

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be absurd. But no one is proposing that. Brad v🍁 23:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mellis has put that same comment on 5 afd discussions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GScholar indicates that several of his papers have been cited over 200 times, which is usually taken as meeting WP:PROF. Some of the arguments given above are seriously misguided: for example, there are many respectable open access journals (and BMJ Open is a very respectable one). --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable references out there that mention Ravnskov in detail, this is the problem. A handful of his papers might have been cited by only in passing to the subject matter of cholesterol. I am not seeing any papers that specifically discuss Ravnskov in detail. As it stands there are no reliable references on the article. How can there be a biography of Ravnskov on Wikipedia with no reliable sources? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? After just searching for a couple of minutes I found Folkow, Björn (12 July 2009). "On criticism in bio-medical research – A tribute to Uffe Ravnskov". Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal. 42 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1080/14017430802044207.. That alone is already more coverage than most academics get in their lifetime and goes a long way to satisfy GNG, let alone PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read that paper it does not discuss Ravnskov in any detail whatsoever. It mentions Ravnskov a whopping total of 4 times, anyone can read the paper in full [42]. Sorry but no, I don't think that paper is enough to justify an entire article for Ravnskov. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant standard here is WP:PROF. The usual criterion is having an influence on the filed from the published work, and for biomedicine this is judged by the sitation to publisher peer-reviewed articles. People in this field publish many papers, and consequently there is a corresponding great number of citations, so he usual acceptance level here is 2 or more papers with over 100 citation seach as shown in GS or(or Scopus, or Wos). His highest citation figures are 233, 225, 139, ....all three from very respectable biomedical journals. There are 7 others with citation figures in the 60s and 90s, also all of them from very respectable journals. The WP:PROF guideline is completely independent of the GNG, and there is no need to show secondary sources. But if we were to look for them, the discussions of his work in many ofthe citing papers would provide them. I also want to point out that the hypothesis behind his work is not pseudoscience , nor even alternative medicine, but a dissenting view from within the medical establishment, not unique to him, and which has very wide current discussion. The article furthermore is written in the normal manner, not as advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 02:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As an inclusionist, I believe that Wikipedia and its users will benefit from keeping this page. First, I'll provide some background about why I am personally interested in Wikipedia and the concept of inclusionalism. Then I'll specifically show how this applies to Ravnskov, from the perspective of a user of Wikipedia. (After all, Wikipedia exists for its users, not its editors!)Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During my career, I was passionate about knowledge-sharing. Before the web, I had already started to investigate the use of hypertext for the purpose. Once the web was devised, I developed my first website in 1994 on my company's intranet. This confirmed my view about the value of the web for knowledge-sharing. Later, once I investigated Wikipedia, it was like a dream come true! A knowledge-base without limits, edited by people with a huge range of different knowledge. I registered over 9 years ago and began editing. Over 7 years ago I realised that I matched the description of an inclusionist. My experience as a user (rather than just an editor) of Wikipedia illustrates why, see below.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read NewScientist pretty-well every week for 55 years. (And many science-rich books). I've seen paradigms come and go. A Scientific Theory (in the scientific definition of "Theory") might appear solid for a long time. But someone becomes skeptical, and starts querying it, sometimes to the derision of proponents of the current paradigm. Often, of course the derision is justified! Many alternatives fail. But some succeed, and eventually (after resistance) a new Theory is established. (Sometimes accompanied by a Nobel Prize). As Max Planck (nearly) said: "science advances one funeral at a time". Wikipedia describes several Theories/paradigms which will eventually be replaced. A problem is that we don't know which they are! Wikipedia would be unwise to claim to have the final word on much of its science content.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1: Suppose I've read the name Ravnskov somewhere, and I want to see what Wikipedia has to say, I access it and put Ravnskov into the search. If I find a page, then I've got what I wanted, and Wikipedia has credibility. Win-win. But if I don't find a page, I obviously don't think "Ravnskov doesn't exist"! Nor do I think "Ravnskov isn't notable". In real-world terms, Ravnskov is worthy of note or memorable. I see this as a failure of Wikipedia, and go elsewhere, disappointed.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2: I see the name Ravnskov in a page on the web. I select the name and right-click on my browser and select "search for …". If there is a page in Wikipedia, it might appear near the top of the search list. I'll probably go there first. If there isn't a page, Wikipedia is worse than invisible. It might as well not exist.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example 3: sometimes I do what probably most people do: simply type Ravnskov into a search engine. This is like Example 2.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example 4: Suppose no one ever searches for Ravnskov! Then it doesn't matter if the page exists. There is no limit on the number of pages in Wikipedia. In effect, users have voted with their fingers that (at least for the time being) Ravnskov isn't notable in the real world. (In future, who know?) There doesn't appear to be a downside in having a redundant page.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should everyone be in Wikipedia? There are serious problems with this idea! For example, a concept in some jurisdictions is "the right to be forgotten". In most cases, I think a useful test might be "might this person ask to be forgotten, and if so, would their request be upheld?" In the case of Ravnskov, perhaps he should be either be asked whether he minds having a page, or perhaps should be able to register a desire to have a page. (I've never communicated with Ravnskov, but I'm guessing that he would want to keep the page).Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should both established paradigms and challenges be offered equal weight? Typically not. The skeptical position may not warrant a page, even if the skeptical person does warrant a BLP. But the existence of a challenge may well be notable in the real world. There may be fierce arguments raging. Wikipedia mustn't take sides and pretend there is no conflict. That would be a false position.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many knowledge-bases in the world. They are typically less broad in their topics than Wikipedia. It is an advantage for Wikipedia in this competition to have the broadest possible coverage. Reducing the topics (including BLPs) by deleting pages doesn't help! Inclusionism may save Wikipedia.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rationale based in policy in there somewhere, Barry? Strikerforce^Talk 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simplistic summary of what I said is: "deletionism is bad for the users of Wikipedia; inclusionism is good for the users of Wikipedia". Or: "deletionism is reducing the credibility of Wikipedia in the real world; inclusionism would improve, or at least maintain, its credibility in the real world". Note that I'm speaking for the sake of users, not editors. While I'm an editor and I've spent time and money on Wikipedia, I'm also a frequent user. As an engineer before I retired, I always examined the user-requirements up-front, and checked later whether they were being satisfied. I think it is now that "later" when we need to recheck. Barry Pearson 14:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry the problem is that reliable secondary sources are lacking that mention Ravnskov. Reliable sources that is what it boils down to, Wikipedia articles would not exist without them. Your rant is off-mission and irrelevant to this deletion discussion. You are arguing to keep, then present 10 or so reliable references (non-primary) that mention Ravnskov? It is a struggle to find them. I would change my vote if reliable sources were presented. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic conversation

I'm not sure whether it is useful to respond to the above comment. User Skeptic from Britain who was involved in starting this deletion process appears to have disappeared under that name. User MatthewManchester1994 who made the comment that I am now replying to appears to have disappeared under that name. Are they the same person? What names do they use now? How can I examine their background in order to ensure that what I say is relevant to them? What is going on? Barry Pearson 08:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same person. Skeptic from Britain was renamed to MatthewManchester1994, which was subsequently renamed to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434. Apparently they were outed, subjected to significant off-wiki harassment, and subsequently have left WP. --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Manchester! I have been unable to discover the name of this person. All I have found is his initials. As far as I can tell, he has not been outed. If someone knows who he is, (I suspect someone does), they are being very discreet. But why should he care? What has he got to hide, and is it relevant and important here? Barry Pearson 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He absolutely WAS outed. Took me 30 seconds to find that, plus the online abuse that is being directed towards him. It is only relevant here because it explains why he is not responding any more. In his place I'd be afraid that some of the creeps outing him might show up at his door. And although I also !voted "keep", I feel very uncomfortable with many of the other "keep" !votes, in addition to the personal aspersions directed towards Skeptic. Most "keep" !votes are not policy based (and indeed some don't even seem to understand what the word "policy" here means, it certainly is not some personal statement of interest...). As for what the nom has to hide: nothing apart from his real life identity, to avoid what is happening right now (i.e. finding his name all over some fanatical fringe sites). Some people have a real life, you know. As for most of the "editors" that are creeping out of the woodwork here to "defend" this biography, having only a handful of edits and apparently blissfully unaware of how WP functions, that usually is a sure sign that something really fishy and some significant off-wiki canvassing is going on. If something or someone really is notable, that is easy enough to show and you don't need personal attacks on the nom or great walls of text with all kinds of trivial arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find his name? As far as I can tell, this has not been published anywhere. I tried (and failed) to find it in order to see if he had indeed been outed. Perhaps this is a matter of terminology. In the real world "outed" means to reveal the name of someone who was trying to hide something. It isn't to claim that some unidentified person has something to hide. I'm sure someone knows who this person is, but they haven't published it. I think the threat to him is being exaggerated. I live in Manchester (where it is suggested that he does) and I've edited and in other forums posted under my own name over decades. Sometimes with views that would be unpopular in some quarters, with on-line abuse, but without any real concern for my well-being. If he is concerned that his name will be published if he continues, why did he then continue here, under a variety of names? Whatever is going on, it isn't simple. (As I say on my User Page, "Editing Wikipedia is not my hobby". I too have a real life outside Wikipedia!) Barry Pearson 09:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tough one. I believe that the lipid hypothesis is incorrect and that those researching low carbohydrate and high fat are correct. BUT, this is not aurornisxui's encyclopedia. I do not believe that notability has been established. On Google Scholar, the article with the most citations only has 200 some citations. Other online sources are quotes from Ravnskov, nothing about the man himself. I checked other sources - the organizations he belongs to, the awards he's won. In some cases, I might not be getting a clear enough picture because of the language difference. That said, the ideas of Ravnskov and Kendrick can be added to the Lipid hypothesis article or used to start a reliably sourced article on the subject of high fat. Keep I've spent the last day researching this and rereading policies, and I think WP:PROF does apply. In his field, the study of cholesterol, he is an important figure. I do not have access to Web of Science, so I carefully checked the citations on Google Scholar, not just looking at the number count, but looking at the articles themselves and, where possible, checking the reference list of those articles. I also believe WP:SELFPUB applies. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nonsense. First of all, 200 citations is a lot, 99% of published articles get fewer citations (if they're cited at all). Second, if you want sources, you only have to search. I listed a good one above with my !vote. Here's another one in the Irish Times. And here's a book review. And another one here. --Randykitty (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable sources, two of those are pseudoscientific websites. A tabloid piece written by a non-professional in the Irish Times is a not a reliable source for medical matters. The review by sott.net is totally unreliable. It is a conspiracy theory paranormal website, look on the front page [43], they have articles supportive of UFOs, faith healing and intelligent design. The piece by Weston A. Price Foundation is not reliable, this foundation promotes dubious pseudoscience such as homeopathy and vaccination denialism. Reviews in an academic medical or science journals would be more reliable but none exist. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way you interpret WP:PROF, not even Richard G. Morris and some Nobelists would be notable... The highly-cited articles and the 3 page article on him in the Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal are more than enough to meet PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 page article you cited only gives a passing mention of him so unlikely it can be used as a reference for major details about his life, another user has noted this [44]. How can you have a Wikipedia article with little to no reliable sources? Let's say this article was kept, it will have virtually no reliable sources on it to establish a biography. So far everything on the article is unsourced. As for passing WP:PROF, it is a borderline. His most cited papers are only a handful they are on 234 but if you look on Google scholar many of his other papers are cited less than 18 times. As for Richard G. Morris he has many reliable sources on his article. He article is the opposite of Ravnskov. I stick to my original vote of delete because of lack of reliable references for Ravnskov. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC):[reply]

A few highly cited papers are what shows notability. It's exactly those highly cited papers which make the person influential in his profession and an authority in the field. Any number of weakly cited papers not only doesn't show notability , but aren't even relevant. Even the best people publish papers on minor points that they come across, or publish work they have jointly done with a student that didn't really succeeds, but gives the student a publication as a start to their career--it's one of the obligations of the head of a research group, In fact, the current best practice is to also publish the studies that get negative results, and in future years, people who only publishes work that shows statistical significance will become viewed a little skeptically.

there are analogies everywhere A painter becomes notable from having even one work in a major museum, no matter how many poor ones they also produce; a performer from having just one or two records that charts (or at least, charts in a high position), a writer from having just one or two best sellers, An entrepreneur from found one really major company; a politician from winning just one state or national election. What is unique about the sciences is that the influence of a major work can be shown numerically. This in fact enable WP to avoid all sorts of bias. One of them is in judging work that we individually think a little wrong-headed., or in showing that someone can be a notable scientist even if at the end of his career he also does some pseudoscience. Even Einstein retracted some of his papers. Even Newton wrote on alchemy.

And WP:PROF, to make things clear, does not require anything be written about the person. RS or otherwise. It's not a special case of the GNG. It's a special case outside of the GNG. . DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the subject ultimately passes WP:PROF based on their impact in the field. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTo delete Uffe Ravnskov because someone does not agree with his ideas is the ultimate in censorship which surely is not what Wikipedia is about. Why not delete the Flat Earthers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies or the Creationists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Whoever it is who disagrees with Dr Ravnskov and others like him, such as Dr Malcolm Kendrick who has now been deleted, should simply do an edit critical of their ideas. Paleogirl (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleogirl (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I don't know how to sign ![reply]
Comment (I stated my "keep" preference above). Here is an observation from my attempts to see if I could improve the references on Ravnskov's page. He is an 84 year old Danish man who did his major work decades ago in Denmark and Sweden and is currently living in Sweden. Finding references on the web in English and to the standards that might be expected in biographies involving more recent work is proving hard. For example I tried to examine a statement I found elsewhere that he had "won the prestigious Leo Prize for Independent Science". I tracked down an elusive indication that such a prize once existed, but very little about it, and no proof he was awarded it. When researching for a totally different page that I created in Wikipedia I discovered that key documents were in boxes in a Library. I wonder if something similar applies here: paper documents in boxes somewhere? Barry Pearson 03:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - largely per User:DGG. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF. Seems this guy is prominent and influential within his field and holds significant minority viewpoints that stimulates healthy academic debate and scientific progress within his field. Significant minority viewpoints, whether later proven true or false with time, are not the same as fringe quackery.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has serious problems with both autobiographical editing and unsourced content. And he's clearly a fringe theorist. But the sources presented in the discussion above are enough to convince me that he's a notable fringe theorist, whether by WP:PROF or WP:GNG (or even maybe WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2018 (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 22:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar module (UFO)[edit]

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

Unsourced; no evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of real world notability cited or found in search. What isn't plot summary appears to be speculation/original research. All of the UFO (TV series) fictional element articles suffer from this problem. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find more sources such as The Complete Book of Gerry Anderson's UFO or The Worlds of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. Just another case of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article not only does not cite sources but it does not give sufficient information to establish the subject as sth more than merely a claim of TV series. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing any claim to notability, being unreferenced, and blurring the line between fiction and reality. Ifnord (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2018 (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] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C24&as_vis=1&q=uffe+ravnskov&btnG=

[2] ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000989817690142X

[1]

[2]