Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 December 3 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Mikelson[edit]

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

Biography of an artist, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim under our inclusion criteria for artists. Two of the seven footnotes here are unnecessarily reduplicated twice each, instead of properly using the named-reference format, so there are really just five distinct sources -- but one of them is a user-generated directory to which anybody can add any artist regardless of their notability or lack thereof; one is the primary source website of an art gallery he was directly affiliated with; one just states the existence of a public library, instead of citing the specific publication details of any actual content held by the library; and one is a press release from a university. And the last is a real (albeit local) newspaper article, but it's about his widow, not him. All of which means that exactly zero of these sources add up to evidence of his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete and possibly recreate at a later date. I met the widow of the subject about a year ago, and contemplated rewriting the existing Wikipedia article. It is largely lifted from the website of the Mind and Matter Gallery, the Mikelson's art gallery, see here [1]. There is a book/memoir written about life with Arnold Mikelson, and a fair amount of newspaper coverage, which probably just clears the notability bar. However, there's not much point in reworking the current state of the article, it's best to just start over. I may do it myself if I gather the necessary sources. Curiocurio (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC) I did some digging on newspapers.com, and found four newspaper features on Mikelson with excellent detail, a 1956 article in the Edmonton Journal, two 1972 and 1980 articles from the Vancouver Sun, and one from a local paper. Besides the memoir on him, which would likely supply much biographical detail, the article itself mentions coverage in the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, which could perhaps be found in the institutional files that ThatMontrealIP indicates below. Curiocurio (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Delete (Changing to keep per CurioCurio's excellent work above). I could not find good sources, but did see a search result for a paywalled 1956 newspaper article. If someone can search old newspapers and find sources, I will change to keep. He probably had good coverage but we would have to dig very deep to find it. I added his listing in the offical Artists in Canada directory (run by the Canadian Heritage department of the govt), which shows four libraries as holding files on him. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Improved references demonstrate sustained coverage. Ifnord (talk) 14:02, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observado.org[edit]

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

This website is non-notable per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No significant coverage was presented in the previous AfD which closed as no consensus. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of significant coverage. The fact that it has been referenced a few times is of course not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:WEB, it's a non-notable website run by a non-notable organization. Ifnord (talk) 22:34, 8 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinee World 2016[edit]

Shinee World 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for two years. There are four sources listed: the first does not confirm the sentence it is referencing, the second is a tweet, the third is an interview and the fourth is a primary source with posts, but no specific one for this sentence. This article had a prod placed on it a year ago that was removed without explanation and since the prod no additional references were placed in the article. Aspects (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:CONCERT TOUR. References are poor or primary, unsubstantiated claims about attendance numbers, and de-proddding without explanation. Ifnord (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG as well, all primary sources in the article+ Twitter, with nothing to be found outside of that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:24, 9 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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Robinson Bush[edit]

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

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. Article subject was never noted for anything of her own merit, only gets attention for family affiliations. A separate article for this person is therefore not warranted per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:BIO. Don't let the sheer amount of prose or bloated size fool you. Much of it just goes into drivel on diagnosis and family grief, perhaps in some attempt to mask the lack of individual notability. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep the children of US Presidents often get articles. I would expect there is an article on every Presidential child for at least the last few Presidemts. Heck we even have pages about Presidential pets. The death of Pauline was a significant event in her parent's life, discussed in biographies of 41 and rightly the subject of a wikipedia page. Better to have this on it's own page instead of trying to cram the material into already very long pages in her parents. Plus her brotger was President and another brother ran for President etc so there is intense biographical interest in all members of the family. I've seen Pauline discussed in detail on CNN twice on CNN just today (Sec State Baker was one of those discussing her death and it's impact on how he dealt with his own wife's cancer. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being too lenient. Being a President's child doesn't automatically mean one deserves their own page. There is nothing usable on her that doesn't have to do with family connections. Any impact on parents is better discussed briefly in their own articles if anywhere. This article is also filled with excessive details on grief and her illness. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't supposed to just be a US President Wikia or a family history site, and see WP:WAX. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the WP:INHERITED essay you cite, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". Robin Bush passes WP:GNG. I'd also argue she is a notable icon for pediatric cancer and leukemia, as her parents (at the time) radically donated her body for science and then devoted much time and energy to foundations for leukemia research, especially the The Robin Bush Child and Adolescent Center. Enwebb (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable icon" is puffery, and I wouldn't go so far to say she was "in close, personal relationships" in the way you've suggested as this is a toddler we're talking about, plus "can" isn't the same thing as "should". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of if you accept or reject that she is notable in terms of pediatric cancer, she meets GNG. Robin Bush is presumed notable enough for an article. Enwebb (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep For reasons previously stated. Notwithstanding objections by SNUGGUMS Gulbenk (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close The previous commentators got here first and said it better than I could. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is topic of analysis in secondary sources. This is not to say I agree with keeping every child of every president or king, suppose for instance a newborn that lived for a few hours, in a era in which that was commonplace. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep. This person has had a profound impact on the lives of other prominent people noted in this encyclopedia. It'd be imprudent not to retain the article. Stolengood (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Profound impact" is probably exaggerating as her death more than anything else prompted grief from parents, though impacting parents isn't in itself enough reason to keep a page regardless. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center about endowments that resulted from the cancer and death of Robin Bush and which went on to affect (that is have a "profound impact" on) many other sick children: "In 1953, the Bushes lost their three-year-old daughter Robin to leukemia. Since that time, the Bushes have been devoted to helping those affected by cancer and actively supporting visionary cancer research. The former President and Mrs. Bush have been involved with MD Anderson Cancer Center since 1977 when they joined the Board of Visitors, the institution’s volunteer advisory board. Mr. Bush served as chairman of the Board of Visitors from 2001 to 2003, never missing a meeting during his term. In June 2004, the Robin Bush Child and Adolescent Clinic at MD Anderson was named for the Bushes’ daughter in recognition of the extraordinary generosity and commitment of George and Barbara Bush to the MD Anderson mission to eliminate cancer." Found at: https://gifts.mdanderson.org/default.aspx?tsid=8517 Taram (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable part of the biographies of George H.W. Bush and Barbara even though she died 65 years ago, you could still see how much it affected them both after all that tme and it has been reflected in the coverage of late. Charles Adams, son of 2nd President John Adams, seems to have played a less significant role in his father's biography yet has his own article. Also a frightening and important reminder of how cancer can strike anyone, at any age. Hamptonian92 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep More has been mentioned about Pauline Robinson Bush in the media and in cultural commentary, including political cartoons, since the deaths of Barbara Bush and George H.W. Bush in 2018. Wikipedia was my first choice of sites to learn more about this child. Removing this article would eliminate the logical first step for young, armchair, and serious researchers in learning more about a case that affected two presidents of the U.S. and at least one First Lady. Taram (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A person can be notable even if they died at a very young age. Has a lot of quality sources and meets the notability requirements. Linguistical (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable no matter her family and relationship Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable due to multiple mentions in the media. This should be obvious. --rogerd (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is worth keeping. You may not agree with it but others have spoken.13-0 ruling.--

Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:34, 5 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False reality bubble[edit]

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

Sort of a sexy catch-phrase. Is scarcely any used and certainly non-deserving of any standalone article.

I intensely wished for a redirect target but failed to find any. Efforts in that direction will be immensely appreciated:-)

I also question the motive of the creator, in light of this thread and the second sentence of the article, as it currently stands. ∯WBGconverse 15:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A phrase pulled from a quote in a single source. Doing a search of my own does not return sufficient coverage to merit WP:GNG. It's not clear to me that this is a term with a consistent meaning, and could be used to relate to a range of subjects. Given that, I'm advocating for deletion rather than redirecting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rhododendrites. If it's a near coin-flip to choose where to redirect it to, redirection isn't the answer. Ifnord (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-It's a definite delete from me. Agree with Iford and Rhododendrites.∯WBGconverse 09:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Filter bubble, as per McClenon. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:25, 9 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. Tone 17:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Durgvanshi[edit]

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

No evidence for a notable topic. The original article was created by a SPA with a number of low-quality and self-published sources. This version has been subsequently trimmed and stubified by other editors.

While I am admittedly not a topic expert, a Google search in various categories did not show any independent reliable sources about this particular clan. GermanJoe (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find any meaningful coverage in newspapers, journals, or books. utcursch | talk 19:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any notability. I'm happy to change my vote should anything arise. Spiderone 20:45, 2 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. Tone 17:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadilah Noor Abbe[edit]

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

Non-notable old lady. Questionable claim to longevity, and even by the standards of these articles the claim of importance is a real stretch. Other than that, we learn she was scared of surgery and got pneumonia once. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what would be remarkable is not getting cateracts while living past 100. Belongs on a list somewhere not a whole page. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. Health problems and initial fear of surgery are eminently WP:ROUTINE, as are claims to longevity. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I looked for more reports in Singaporean newspapers, but the best I could find was very doubtful. Nowhere is her purported birth date fully stated, only "her ID card says 1897". No obituary upon her death. One 2010 article states that "her daughter died in her arms in the late 1990s, at the age of 55", while Madam Fadilah "was about 90 years old then", but if she were born in 1897 she would have been about 100 years old in the "late 1990s". Not ripe for Wikipedia. — JFG talk 08:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO1E, only "notable" for claiming to live to age X. Like most of these longevity claims, cannot be expanded beyond "born, claimed age X, died". This article tells us more about other supercentenarian claims than it does about her and it stretches the whole "fear of surgery" thing to try to pad this article. But again, there is nothing to say about her. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:06, 9 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 Monopoly (game). Sandstein 07:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.[edit]

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. WP:NOTDICT. All sources I could find, including those in the article, use the phrase (see use–mention distinction). Content cited to ref 7 is even original research. wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google book search results indicate many more instances of mention and various nuances and forms with whose help the article could be expanded. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep – as with Chance and Community Chest cards, Monopoly has major cultural significance, and as a result this expression is clearly notable. There are plenty of sources available to expand this topic, and there is no deadline to do so. Bradv 05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to merge, per comments below and the result of this related AfD. There is potential for both of these topics to have improved coverage in the Monopoly article, especially since we are not as adverse to long articles as we used to be. Bradv🍁 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Andrew Davidson and Bradv. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did anyone look at the sources, or even the Encyclopedia of Play in Today's Society? The lede, become widely used in popular culture to describe an action forced upon a person that has only negative results, is cited to two sources, one of which I don't have access to but is titled "Credit Repair Kit for Dummies," and the other one only uses it in a sentence in an academic article. Neither back up the quotation. It continues: no source in the article talks about the phrase in any sort of meaningful or substantive context. This fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY as we're not a guide to jargon, and I don't see this passing WP:GNG since none of these sources talk about the phrase in any sort of significant coverage apart from just mentioning that it's associated with the game. I propose we add a single sentence to the article discussing how some of its phrases have become incorporated into real life. SportingFlyer talk 14:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Have to agree with above, WP is not a dictionary or place for simple phrases with little to no major coverage. Add to the monopoly page is fitting, but its own page is a overreach. ContentEditman (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There is one line of "meaning" in the article, with three citations none of which say anything more. Unless there is a substantial discussion of the topic in the source, it doesn't count for WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with article on Monopoly (game). Vorbee (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the "merge" option deserves closer examination that might lead to a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Monopoly - none of the references are convincing that the phrase is notable. They aren't about the phrase, they simply use it (or describe it in-passing as a cliche). The phrase is well-known, which (barely) justifies the redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Monopoly (game). bd2412 T 23:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Andrew D. said. There are ample sources for the topic out there [2], [3], [4]. Kerberous (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Monopoly (game). Does not satisfy GNG on its own. Also inclusion in a very specific encyclopedia does not mean automatic inclusion in wikipedia. Lots of people fail to undersand that.--1l2l3k (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited merge to Monopoly (game). Not notable as a phrase other than in conjunction with the game. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:18, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arthur and Postcards from Buster home video releases[edit]

List of Arthur and Postcards from Buster home video releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. The only reference in this article is to Amazon listings; I don't see significant non-store coverage of these releases (and consider it extremely unlikely that there would be coverage of the two shows paired together). This topic is discussed briefly in the existing articles on the separate shows, due to WP:XY this newly-created article isn't a plausible redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I agree with the nomination. This is overly specific and not of much use. Reyk YO! 12:54, 4 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's a consensus that the article meets WP:GNG based on the provided sources and so merits a stand-alone article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien[edit]

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

Time for another AfD here. Being the oldest of a defined religious background is not itself notable, and despite the claims of the first AfD there's almost no biographical information about him. Possibly worth mentioning his name somewhere, but there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is just nothing he accomplished that is notable. Note I'm changing my vote from last time due ro evolved thinking on the topic. I put up the list of Polish super old people at AFD yesterday if someone is interested in this general topic Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 魯永明 (2004-05-06). "人瑞神父高師謙 全台留足跡". United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. Kao was born in Changle City in Fuzhou, Fujian.
      2. His paternal grandfather's elder brother was a Qing dynasty scholar.
      3. He was a good student in his youth.
      4. He was baptized at age 18 into the Catholic Church.
      5. In the 22nd year of the Republic of China, he established a primary school in Fuzhou.
      6. In the 38th year of the Republic of China, he was sent to Taiwan, where he first preached at Tamsui District.
      7. He established the Our Lady of Fatima Church in Taiwan.
      8. He then moved to Kaohsiung to preach.
      9. At the beginning of his life, he was a missionary who taught in multiple places.
      10. He then retired to a seminary in Hong Kong.
      11. He has experienced several mishaps.
      12. When he was 38, he was on a boat that departed from Fujian. The boat turned over. He floated in the sea and was rescued.
      13. At age 68, while he was cleaning a Virgin Mary shrine, he fell and hit his head.
      14. At age 72, he slipped in the restroom and his head hit a gas cylinder.
      15. He had a gallbladder stone at age 80 and wrote a will. His gallbladder removal surgery was successful.
      16. He placed Virgin Mary shrines in different places including at the Chinese Dominican Sisters nunnery.
      17. His advice to people is "seven nos" and "seven hearts". The seven "nos": "no smoking, no anger, no alcohol, no overeating, constant exercise, constant prayer, no doing rude things". The "seven hearts": "confidence, humility, love, kindness, patience, filial piety, perseverance".
    2. Mitchell, Justin (2005-10-08). "Priest confesses secrets of longevity". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. Kao was born in Fuzhou, Fujian, on January 15, 1897.
      2. Guinness World Records said he is the oldest Catholic priest.
      3. Guinness World Records said he is the oldest person to undergo cataract surgery.
      4. Kao underwent cataract surgery in May 2005.
      5. In 2005, he had lived at Our Lady of Joy Abbey for the past 32 years.
      6. His room at the monastery has a "large painted portrait of Kao on white tapestry cloth".
      7. His room is "cramped" and is full of "boxes, books, newspapers, magazines, tracts, photos, religious pictures and icons and a collection of ceramic cats".
      8. He had four brothers.
      9. He attended a school operated by Spanish Dominican friars and while there became a Catholic at 18.
      10. His father, a Buddist and a teacher, did not object. Influenced by Kao, his other family members also became Catholics.
      11. Kao was educated to be a teacher. He studied law during the night.
      12. When a Spanish friar, who was his close friend, unexpectedly died, he chose to join the priesthood.
      13. He voted for Sun Yat Sen to be China's president in 1912.
      14. He established six shrines in the Virgin Mary's honor (three in Taiwan, one in Fuzhou which Communists demolished, one in Malaysia, and one In Lantau) because he attributes her to saving himself from almost-fatal incidents.
      15. He had surgery for colon cancer when he was 107.
    3. 林良哲 (2005-11-13). "〈中部〉108歲神父高師謙 來台宣神恩". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. At age 108, he visited Taiwan on November 12, 2005, to observe and speak at a ceremony where his brother's grandson was ordained as a priest. The ceremony was at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church and was presided over by Bishop Joseph Wang Yu-jung.
      2. He gave his brother's grandson a pair of rosary beads. In his speech, he said that he experienced two miracles. The first was to allow him to live to 108 years old and the second is to see a third generation join the priesthood.
      3. Kao was the oldest priest in Chinese society in 2005.
      4. He was born in Fuzhou in 1897.
      5. He was baptized in 1915.
      6. He was ordained as a priest in 1933.
      7. After the Chinese Civil War, he went to Taiwan for evangelism work.
      8. He remained with the Catholic Church in Taiwan until age 74 when he went to Our Lady of Joy Abbey in Hong Kong.
    4. 林隆士 (2005-11-13). "人瑞神父來台傳教　高齡108歲". TVBS. Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. In 2005 at age 108, Kao was the oldest priest in the world.
      2. Kao flew from Hong Kong to Taiwan to participate in the ordination of his brother's grandson.
      3. His hair and beard were white and he wore black-rimmed glasses.
      4. He was born in Fujian in 1897.
      5. He graduated from Xiamen University's School of Law.
      6. He was ordained a priest at age 36.
      7. He taught in Southeast Asia for 72 years.
    5. "年屆一百零八歲高師謙神父，畢生追求和平與包容" (in Chinese). Union of Catholic Asian News. 2005-12-09. Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. Kao underwent cataract surgery in his left eye in June 2005 and in his right eye 15 years prior to that.
      2. On November 12, 2005, he went on a two-hour plane flight to Taiwan to attend his brother's grandson's ordination.
      3. Kao is a member of the Cistercians religious order.
      4. He was born in Fuzhou in January 1897 during the Qing Dynasty.
      5. He was ordained in 1933.
      6. He first worked at Saint Dominic's Cathedral, Fuzhou and then served for 40 years in Taiwan and Malaysia.
      7. At 75 in 1972, he stopped his priest work and joined the Cistercians order of monks.
      8. He lived at Our Lady of Joy Abbey in Hong Kong.
      9. Since 1932, he read the rosary ten times daily. Since October 2004, he began reading the rosary 20 times daily. He hoped that by reading the rosary, people will listen to their conscience and not lightly start wars.
    6. 張嘉雯; 陳沛敏 (2007-12-12). "隱居大嶼山修道: 最長壽的香港人110歲人瑞逝世". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-12-02. Retrieved 2018-12-02.

      Here is information from the article:

      1. He was born in the Qing Dynasty and lived through the reigns of Guangxu Emperor and Puyi as well as ten Popes
      2. He was born in Fuzhou on January 15, 1897, the third child in the family.
      3. At the age of seven, he stole his father's glasses and accidentally broke them. Kao's father chased him but was blocked by Kao's mother.
      4. He was baptized in 1915.
      5. He became a priest in 1933 and worked at Saint Dominic's Cathedral, Fuzhou.
      6. For 40 years, he taught in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand among other places.
      7. He died at Our Lady of Joy Abbey in Lantau Island.
      8. He at age 75 began practicing an ascetic lifestyle.
      9. In the year of Kao's death, the reporter visited him at the monastery to interview him. Kao said the main job was to raise chickens and that it was taboo to speak at the monastery.
      10. Kao with his fellow monastery members woke up at 3:30am to say their prayers, plant vegetables, and read books. They recited the scriptures seven times every day. Kao particularly enjoyed the Holy Rosary, which he recited 20 times every day.
      11. He and the monastery members went to bed at 8:30pm every night.
      12. He did not watch the television but loved reading newspapers. He particularly enjoyed reading Sing Pao Daily News.
      13. He died December 11, 2007.
    7. "Oldest Chinese priest dies one month before 111th birthday". Union of Catholic Asian News. 2007-12-12. Archived from the original on 2008-02-19. Retrieved 2018-12-02.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nicholas Kao Se Tseien to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources were published in 2004, 2005, and 2007 and establish that Nicholas Kao Se Tseien has received persistent coverage in reliable sources. The sources discuss his career as a priest in detail and provide plenty of biographical background about him.

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he was a priest (not notable), had some surgeries and accidents (me too, some more exciting then his), traveled a bit (2 hour plane ride!) and had some family. Where is the notability? Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. "Tseien" as he has multiple articles written about him, he satisfies GNG. (Plus he's accomplished more than that American sailor who also survived AfD, despite his sole distinction being the first to sight the enemy.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and there is nothing to say about this man other then fancruft like he was the oldest person to have a cataract operation and was part of the Catholic Church. What even is the claim to notability here? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not 1 event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. This is how we determine notability here. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE applied because most sources do not just state there age, they question their lifestyle to determine how such longevity is achieved. It is only common sense to cover supercentenarians in fact we should have even more articles about them, but this history of deleting supercentenarians has been very destructive to Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 10:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must not know what the Chewbacca defense is if you think I am using it. When people reach a certain age reliable sources cover them. On Wikipedia, we are allowed to have articles on people who pass GNG. Having a 3 digit age beginning with 11 does NOT automatically confer notability, but having a 3 digit age beginning with 11 and being covered by multiple reliable secondary sources DOES confer notability. It really is that simple. Valoem talk contrib 10:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Mr. Kao was a long-lived Chinese catholic priest. A few newspapers wrote about his life, but there is nothing notable in there. Wikipedia is not mandated to collect everything ever printed in a newspaper. The long lists of facts above only serve to obscure the utter lack of notability of this person. Let's talk about my dad instead:
    1. Kao was born in Changle City in Fuzhou, Fujian. My dad was born in a lovely small village of Alsace, then under German military occupation.
    2. His paternal grandfather's elder brother was a Qing dynasty scholar. My dad's great-great-great-grandfather was a local nobleman of Swiss German descent. At least, so they say.
    3. He was a good student in his youth. My dad was an exceptional student, who obtained a state sponsorship to board a prestigious engineering school.
    4. He was baptized at age 18 into the Catholic Church. Everybody was baptized in my dad's village, mostly before their sixth month of life.
    5. In the 22nd year of the Republic of China, he established a primary school in Fuzhou. In 1960, my dad served in the French Air Force.
    6. In the 38th year of the Republic of China, he was sent to Taiwan, where he first preached at Tamsui District. In 1963, my dad was sent to Paris, where he first joined a multinational company.
    7. He established the Our Lady of Fatima Church in Taiwan. My dad created widely-used business software for IBM.
    8. He then moved to Kaohsiung to preach. My dad then moved to the South of France to head the IT department of a subsidiary.
    9. At the beginning os his life, he was a missionary who taught in multiple places. My dad was well-traveled, and drove our family all over Europe.
    10. He then retired to a seminary in Hong Kong. My dad retired as well. Good move.
    11. He has experienced several mishaps. My dad was lucky enough to remain in good health into old age.
    12. When he was 38, he was on a boat that departed from Fujian. The boat turned over. He floated in the sea and was rescued. My dad's son (me) narrowly escaped the third deadliest rail disaster in peacetime France.
    13. At age 68, while he was cleaning a Virgin Mary shrine, he fell and hit his head. My dad feels so sorry for Mr. Kao.
    14. At age 72, he slipped in the restroom and his head hit a gas cylinder. Mr. Kao clearly has a strong head; my dad can't compete.
    15. He had a gallbladder stone at age 80 and wrote a will. His gallbladder removal surgery was successful. My dad had surgery on his optical nerve; the operation did not restore full vision but that was better than losing sight entirely. I am not aware of my dad's will, but who knows, I may be a disavowed legatee…
    16. He placed Virgin Mary shrines in different places including at the Chinese Dominican Sisters nunnery. My dad collected stamps.
    17. His advice to people is "seven nos" and "seven hearts". The seven "nos": "no smoking, no anger, no alcohol, no overeating, constant exercise, constant prayer, no doing rude things". The "seven hearts": "confidence, humility, love, kindness, patience, filial piety, perseverance". My dad has no advice for life. Sad!
In loving dedication to EEng's WP:ASTONISHME. — JFG talk 10:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few newspapers wrote about his life, but there is nothing notable in there." – that "a few newspapers wrote about his life" over a sustained period of years means he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no requirement that the biographical information about a subject be notable.

    The quotes you have copied clearly demonstrate that reliable sources have covered Nicholas Kao Se Tseien's career as a priest in detail. The sources discuss how he, a Buddhist's son, became a priest. The sources discuss what he did as a priest: worked at Saint Dominic's Cathedral, Fuzhou, established a primary school in Fuzhou, preached in Taiwan at Tamsui District, established the Our Lady of Fatima Church in Taiwan, and established six shrines in the Virgin Mary's honor (three in Taiwan, one in Fuzhou which Communists demolished, one in Malaysia, and one In Lantau).

    Regarding your dad, if "a few newspapers wrote about his life" over a sustained period of years, he would pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the policy, and I'm sure that if my dad reaches 110, he will get just as much coverage as Mr. Kao. We happen to disagree on whether that makes someone notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, my point being that such people would never be covered unless they happened to live longer than most of their fellow humans. We do have articles on notable supercentenarians, the key factor being that their life and deeds were notable independently of their age. — JFG talk 20:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Nicholas Kao Se Tseien never would have been covered if he did not live to 110 years old. But I am basing my "keep" position on Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires only significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no requirement in the guidelines or policies that to pass Wikipedia:Notability, supercentenarians must have lives independently notable of their age even if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources owing to their longevity.

To make "to be notable, a supercentarian must have lives and deeds that were notable independently of their age" a policy-based argument would require an RfC at a venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), like what currently is being done for school inclusion criteria.

Cunard (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Per Cunard. Julia Kinsley (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Julia Kinsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Julia Kinsley has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Into the Rift CommanderLinx (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Cunard. Meets WP:GNG. Evident problem is that we have a distinct English language bias, as do the search engines listed above and many of the WP:RS sources are in Chinese. The article needs to be fleshed out, and the sources added as references. But in that sense, this is a reason to improve the article, not a reason to delete it. See WP:Before for an agenda and hierarchy of preferences and remedies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism deletion discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
A lot of the argument – particulary User: JFG's – ignores the sources, and is in essence a "just" and "mere" mocking of his tremendous achievements, including his longevity. Come back when your father reaches 110, and we will see how much coverage he got. It reminds me of an opinion I encountered in my professional career, "Is mere conviction of a felony reason to remove a sitting judge." Once you use those words, you have poisoned the well, and made the Q.E.D. conclusion inevitable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in my statement mocks Mr. Kao or his achievements: he was a respected priest and certainly lived a honorable life. My irony was exclusively directed at the zeal of statements couching "he hit his head twice" as elements of noteworthiness. — JFG talk 18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The defense is greatly obfuscated here by the long list of irrelevant "achievements". A brief list of things that make him notable would be of service here. Jzsj (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it is still a falacious argument. Reductio ad absurdum 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To slightly modify Inigo Montoya: You use that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. In what way is it absurd to argue that routine coverage does not warrant an article? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Chinese google find sources. The prior perceived lack of sources was a result of English language bias, and an example of GIGO. This should clear up the mystery. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard, IMO meet GNG. 74.50.209.241 (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC). — 74.50.209.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep as easily passes WP:GNG with sustained non-routine significant coverage in multiple very reliable sources as shown by Cunard and others. The nominator and his longevity project cohorts are on a mission to delete every longevity bio regardless of whether it is notable or not mainly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for such an eloquent explanation of our motive. I remain unconvinced that, in this instance, there's enough material for a full biography. This is the essence of WP:NOPAGE; it's not about notability, but the fact that there's not much here to write about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer the vote here is currently 8 keep to 3 delete. No hanging chads. Let's see if you can do the math and figure out the consensus and make the right call unlike here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng gave you solid advice to cool it with this severely flawed analogy. I'm unsure why you've chosen not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful bickering
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
When I want your advice I'll be sure to ask for it. We all need to know where the bodies are buried. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously 7&6, what's going on with you? EEng 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about me. Articles can be improved. But there is a larger supervening agenda. Those who are editing Supercentarian articles should be aware.
Those who close should be aware that saying there is "no consensus" when there clearly was undermines the WP:AFD process. Process and honest results matter.
Pool table is tilted. It can't hurt to let the accountants know they are being watched. If the count is honest then the problem is entirely avoided. If not, then ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can candidly say that I am so confused beyond belief, and on so many levels, that it's hard to know where to start. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To start, EEng was apparently and openly WP:Canvassed to participate here by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know what's going on with you, but you're really losing your grip. I participate in all these longevity AfDs; no one needs to canvas me. And AfDs aren't closed according to "counts", as surely you know already. Now cut it out. EEng 19:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only know the timeline. If you had not been summoned (I assume you admit that) your participation would be cleaner. It would have helped to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I only note that other established editors had their votes ignored elsewhere for a lot less. But I know you, and WP:AGF as to your intent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you won't extend that assumption to me, but I remain just as confused about everything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the 100th time, WP:Nopage is part of WP:Notability, which has been resolved in the prior AFD. We know what you said; we disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't disagree with that which you clearly misunderstand. Regardless of what page NOPAGE is on, it deals with a question completely independent of notability. EEng 23:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. All you have done is repackaged 'old wine' in 'new bottles.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. Enough independent coverage for a page. Some supercentenarians or whatever you call them are notable, even if many are not. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 101st time, notability has nothing to do with it. EEng 02:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By mentioning the word "page" in my comment, I meant to assert that WP:NOPAGE does not apply, due to large amount of info furnished by Cunard above. Now wikilinking the word "page" to make it clearer. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:51, 10 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Port Phillip Bay Bridge[edit]

Port Phillip Bay Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Better search might be: google

A non-existent bridge that is being proposed by the creator of this article. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of this proposal. By the author's own account here, he has been proposing this bridge since 1998. This article appears to be a promotional effort or advertising, or both, in conjunction with this personal proposal. In the article itself, he states the proposal is "not a serious proposition at the moment." Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a legit topic as an actually historically significant proposal that still comes up from time to time, but it needs to actually document that - this guy's iteration of it is not itself notable and none of this content is actually helpful for an encyclopedia article. I am not opposed to responding with WP:TNT in the case of the current article but I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic should someone recreate it and do it properly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to clear things up. The original author isn't the one proposing the bridge. The diff provided to my talk page and recent edits to the article are from a former CEO of the company who worked on the bridge proposal, and he's here some 20 years later offering his entire proposal text and images into the public domain. I'm undecided whether this topic warrants an article or not. It was a big discussion point across media at the time but again, nothing ever came of it and probably never will. -- Longhair\talk 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Basically WP:TNT ie WP:DUEWEIGHT. Initial indications are notable in general re a bridge, but the current article is one of several infrastructure proposals, including a tunnel? Articles needs to discuss all such proposals with due weight. Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - redirect suggestion: It turns out there's an article at The Rip already (yes, it's about the stretch of water that this non-existent bridge would cross). It does not, at present, include any info about potential crossing infrastructure, be that a bridge, tunnel, what-have-you. Suggest that this article redirect to a new section in The Rip that would cover such crossing propositions, similar to what Aoziwe (talk) suggested, just not as a stand-alone article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've started that section here. If anyone has anything to add, that would be helpful. I think a redirect to there would be appropriate, along with a line or two summarizing what the author of this article has submitted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this: as the current article makes clear, a bay bridge would not likely cross the actual The Rip because of engineering reasons. Redirecting there just adds a layer of confusion. Just delete the thing so that a coherent article might be written one day, rather than redirecting it to a place it won't cross. Aoziwe's suggestion would be much better covered by a Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or something of that ilk. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Any crossing, be it bridge or tunnel, would cross The Rip. Just because the current article says one route is "unlikely" doesn't mean a layer of confusion is added. Another proposed crossing would still cross The Rip. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there's also nowhere near enough material to justify creating an article called Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or anything like it. I'm not 100% opposed to a redirect to Port Phillip rather than The Rip, but the Port Phillip article doen't have any material discussing crossing proposals either. If you'd like to add some there, I'm certain a redirect to there would be a viable option. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this article makes clear, you can't have a crossing at The Rip without causing major issues at Point Nepean, which is basically as heavily protected an area as you can get on environmental, cultural and heritage grounds. You've not cited any source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there. I don't understand the determination to redirect an article to a place that any bridge definitely won't be. A Port Phillip redirect would be vastly more logical (and you put the information in The Rip article, so it can easily be moved), but it's still a worse outcome than just deleting the thing so it stays as a redlink for future article creation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Three days ago you wrote "I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic". Now you've said there's no "source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there" and you're arguing for deletion. Anyway, there is one source discussing a crossing there, that I already added to The Rip article, and here's another. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying a redirect seems appropriate. There's not going to be an article at this name - "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" - unless a bridge is built. If your arguments are correct, then Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals would be a more appropriate title. What's the upside of a straight deletion? Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable, the exact location of which depends upon the proposal, but a direct crossing at The Rip being unlikely - and which those sources don't contradict (they just say bridge). You're the one with the obsession with The Rip and I just don't get the enthusiasm - Port Phillip would be a much more obvious redirect target if you absolutely must. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable" - I don't agree that that's obvious at all. Where's the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Also, I have no obsession with The Rip - but any proposals for "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" (or tunnel) were proposals that would cross at The Rip. Show me one proposal that's crossing somewhere besides The Rip and you might have a case for a redirect to Port Phillip. But there aren't any, are there? Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone know which of the sources might actually pass WP:GNG as opposed to being primary government documents? SportingFlyer talk 08:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some as per my suggested "Better search might be:" at top of this discussion? Aoziwe (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that. It's just two opinion pieces on the possibility of a bridge. I actually used one of them when I added the section to The Rip. Which is why I think that might be an appropriate redirect target. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the people providing comments, but actually having an opinion, could !vote. I'm loath to make a decision on comments alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be purely speculative with a bunch of government sources which have looked into the planning of the bridge, but not much else. No problems with a merge to the Rip/adding a section there about failed crossing plans per ATD. SportingFlyer talk 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from a quick glance, the entirety of David G Broadbent's contributions should be removed; I plan to do so shortly. The previous version revision from March looks OK; I find enough references [5] [6] about a potential bridge to justify a keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, neither of those sources are "Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals". One is an opinion column that says "we should build a bridge here." The other is an article about something else that includes two sentences that state "since 1950 people have been saying there should be a bridge here." Even taken together, I don't see how that's enough to justify an article under our guidelines. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the current state of the article (and cleaning it up a bit) I'm more convinced than ever that a redirect and merge is the right way to go. The bridge is non-existent. The sources for bridge "proposals" are literally just people writing opinion columns saying "people have been saying they should build this bridge." There's never been any serious planning to actually build a bridge, and what talk there has been is quite insignificant, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources dealing with this topic. It still doesn't reach WP:GNG. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:51, 3 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Smith (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile app. Article written like it's an ad. Modojo is not on WP:VGRS, and the Common Sense Media review is for a totally different game (just look at it!). So, when a Google search turns up no other reviews, we're left with TouchArcade, which is barely reliable in my opinion. We can't maintain an article on a single source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've change some citations as told to me, including additional reference, the homepage of the game developer and I've removed The Common Sense Review. Hope there is no else problem occur to this article. Thanks

Video game task (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos a Google search turns up no other reviews You didn't look very hard. Adam9007 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me. No other reliable reviews. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're all listed at Wikipedia:VGRS. Adam9007 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in process for removing the bad references as you mention them. The new references are more intellectual and descriptive form. You can automatically remove these references that doesn't taste you, but don't despair to the deletion process. Video game task (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes WP:GNG per multiple reliable reviews that cover the game and are listed on the reliable sources list:
Touch Arcade (already in the article) https://toucharcade.com/2012/09/27/granny-smith-review/
Gamezebo https://www.gamezebo.com/2012/09/04/granny-smith-review/
Slide to Play http://www.slidetoplay.com/granny-smith-review/
AppSpy http://www.appspy.com/review/3441/granny-smith-review
Pocket Gamer https://www.pocketgamer.com/articles/044624/granny-smith/
148Apps (situational source but still counts) http://www.148apps.com/reviews/granny-smith-review/
CNET https://www.cnet.com/reviews/granny-smith-review/
And to say a source is unreliable just because it is not found on the list, does not mean you can discount it already, and you should have opened the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to get a consensus of reliability/unreliability. That being said some coverage on the sites that have no consensus as of now.....
Tech in Asia https://id.techinasia.com/review-granny-smith (WP:GNG also includes foreign reviews, and this site seems very notable)
Gamer's Temple https://www.gamerstemple.com/featured-review/ios/1253/granny-smith-review
Modojo https://modojo.com/article/5478/granny_smith
This should be withdrawn in my opinion. Sorry, but this seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable video game passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, specifically those at WP:VG/RS as per above matching links. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:53, 3 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. Tone 18:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Charusha[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian actress and singer. Cinema roles are episodic, musical works of little significance.----RTY9099 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON as there is future potential for her to be recognized for scores, if she continues in that direction. Most articles I saw had her as a tag-along ("movie starring X,Y, and Z; music by DC, blah blah here's more about the plot"). I did see a couple of Russian sites with possible featured articles but I don't know if they are blogs or reliable sources. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was nominated for AFD on 8 November but, I think, the discussion was never added to any day's logs. I've added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, one for lack of multiple notable roles (even her Hardcore Henry one is among the last placed in the cast), and the other for lack of significant coverage from secondary sources. None can be found. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 9 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani television series[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why would we need to have a list of Indian television series in order to have one on Pakistani television series? --Michig (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: I know this is an argument which should be avoided but I'm just trying to point out that a list on a similar subject does not exists for India or any other country and therefore article in question should also not exist. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a template at the bottom of this page that has lists for many other countries. You just happen to have picked India, which isn't in the template. But these lists DO exist for many other places. matt91486 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep television series in Pakistan are obviously the subject of significant coverage; the TV guide and newspaper sections on TV shows. However, this may be too large a classification to be useful; having a page Lists of Pakistani television series instead with more specific descriptions may be more effective. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This doesn't come under listcruft, this is a list of television programmes with a clear inclusion criteria - being notable and made in Pakistan. Ajf773 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why wouldn't television series in a particular nation not be notable, this is like one of those "duh" things. Seems like a clear ethnic bias going on here, given the "why not India?" sentiment. Zaathras (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Pakistani television series and its subcategories. North America1000 05:48, 9 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. Tone 18:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Notebook Green[edit]

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

Non-notable DSiWare software; very little information about it exists online. Entranced98 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's nothing noteworthy here, aside from the temptation to make a bad pun. The cited articles are very lacking in information and boil down to "you can doodle notes in this" which is hardly significant in any way, with one of the sources being the product page (which should, if anything, be an external link). Additionally, I can find no other sources, yet alone ones of significance. CommissarPat (talk) 04:28, 4 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. Tone 18:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gireau[edit]

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

the only online sources seem to be e-commerce platforms; the corporate website appears to be dead. Does not seem notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company/product which now appears to be defunct: [7]. There is a short tasting item in the Carmarthen Journal ([8]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) and Google shows a paywalled snippet of what looks like routine announcement coverage in The Grocer [9] but I am seeing nothing to indicate that notability was ever attained, whether as a company or for its product. AllyD (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 7 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 Andrew Carnegie. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Pension[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, and probably not a topic at all. Neither reference supports any topic of this name; it doesn't make sense for a donation to be made "through pensions" and even if Pensions & Investments recognizes Mr. Carnegie as the seminal figure in pension fund history, it doesn't mean that this is a thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This [10] seems to suggest that such a thing did indeed exist. No strong opinion about notability otherwise either way. Atchom (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as undeveloped WP:SPINOFF of Andrew Carnegie (which currently contains a longer text on this than here) and TIAA (one of Carnegie's pension plans). Carnegie Pensions (actually a few different ones) are quite possibly notable standalone (from Carnegie and successor organizations - e.g. see [11][12][13]) - however the article should be a developed spinoff (as opposed to containing less text than the parent article on the subject). Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Andrew Carnegie. If there's anything that's not already covered in Andrew Carnegie, it can be merged there. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is certainly a low quality stub, but the subject itself (Carnegie's work with pensions) seems notable. This involved the United States Steel and Carnegie Pension Fund, the TIAA and a proposed pension for US presidents (some sources found after a quick search: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). It is possible that the subject is best covered in other articles, but that is an editorial decision that can be worked out on the talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:50, 10 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. Tone 18:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Michael Grace[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably. He is a journalist, and so needs to meet WP:JOURNALIST: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." In addition to the two references in which he is cited already included in the article, eg in Theatre Research in Canada, Volume 17 [19], Culture Meets Culture in the Movies [20], Filtering the news [21], Animated 'worlds ' [22], The Unz Review here [23] and here [24], and other blogs [25] and websites [26] and [27]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just because we can technically verify their existence via glancing namechecks of their existence in reliable source coverage about other things, or because of anything published on any blog — to establish that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", what we require is coverage about him which analyzes his significance in that regard. But the sources listed above aren't doing that at all — they all just briefly namecheck his existence rather than contextualizing his importance. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's no indication or evidence in this article to support notability......PKT(alk) 15:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 2 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. This has been open two weeks with no delete votes, and the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of architectural engineering[edit]

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

This is a list of colleges providing degree in architectural engineering, not a history. Daiyusha (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list of colleges is in order of accreditation date, which is a historical account of architectural engineering. AnthonyLudwar (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2018
  • Keep, or "Speedy Keep". There is no reason for deletion suggested in the nomination. There's no reason for AFD editors to cast about and try to come up with a reason either; there are other, legitimate AFD nominations to consider instead. --Doncram (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article leaves a lot to be desired, but that is not a reason for deletion.Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The deletion nominator seems to be new and unaware of some guidelines. It appears to me they wanted to implement a merge, in effect, but instead they copied the content of the AFD article to another (architectural engineering) and then they proposed the deletion of the AFD article. That's not how a merger is to be done, one reason being that it erases, improperly, the edit contribution history of the work done by editors who composed the table. I posted just now at User talk:AnthonyLudwar#copying within Wikipedia, other to give them some info and to ask them to withdraw this AFD nomination. Whether or not they do, I think this could still be closed immediately by anyone with Speedy Keep, because it is just procedurally wrong. --Doncram (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, argh, the deletion nominator is a different person. AnthonyLudwar's edit copying the table without attribution is still wrong, and I still think this should be closed, but they were not the nominator. --Doncram (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is me sorting the schools when I was making the table.
  • I made the table myself where I copied from is where I made it and I am the one who added it to (architectural engineering). I'm new to wiki. I'm a student trying to do a project. I have more pictures of me sorting and a word document where I gathered information on all the school. I am not fond of being accused of taking other peoples work when I spent a lot of time getting imformation and learning how to make a table in wiki. AnthonyLudwar (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2018 (MT)
I am sorry, indeed, to have misunderstood the situation twice then. No more need to prove about your having developed the information, so you weren't wrong to copy it in elsewhere without giving attribution (because the attribution would have only been to yourself). I was trying to be friendly at AnthonyLudwar's Talk page, but i messed up by not investigating more to see what happened more fully. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AFD is ready to be closed ("Keep", because there is no deletion reason proposed). The fact that an improper move of material has happened doesn't matter. Editors can choose to merge later/separately if they like. --Doncram (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a problem with the article in that it is primarily a list of institutions offering courses on the subject, not the actual history. I can see how there might be a good article written on the subject, how the subject evolved in history into the current discipline, exploring the engineering aspects of Greek and Roman architecture and medieval cathedrals, the way challenges in architecture were tackled, look at works such as Brunelleschi's dome, Michelangelo's St. Peter's Basilica, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Joseph Paxton's Crytal Palace, to the modern day work of Frei Otto, Santiago Calatrava, Ove Arup, etc., and how the engineering of modern day structure has been improved by advances computing that resulted in more adventurous design. This however is not it, and I'm in two minds as to whether a WP:TNT might be the best approach. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've decided to start adding some content on the history with sources that should pass WP:GNG. Although it is still quite rudimentary, it can form the basis for further expansion into a decent article. Hzh (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:33, 2 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. Although it is clear from the discussion that improvement is needed. Sandstein 13:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genome-wide complex trait analysis[edit]

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

This is page is an astounding work of original research and synthesis, assembling a bunch of primary sources and unsourced content into a review article. To make this a Wikipedia article it would have be completely done over. It reflects a ton of work and kudos for that, but it doesn't belong here per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Maybe Wikiversity.

I am also nominating the following page, for the same reason: Genetic correlation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the primary author of these two articles. Jytdog is engaged in a hostile nomination due to my comments on his other genetics AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination). (We have never interacted before that I can recall, but he has a history of this sort of thing.) His comments here are no more correct than his claims on that AfD; if you look at the 2 articles, you will see scores of citations of reviews, systematic reviews, textbooks, and meta-analyses and that they are scrupulously cited, to a fault. --Gwern (contribs) 21:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry you feel that it is hostile. These two pages are what they are; there are loads of primary sources per WP:MEDDEF, and these pages don't belong in WP per the nomination. You should publish these pages somewhere else as your own reviews of the field. We will see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optimistic keep-but-crop-heavily This is indeed an impressive piece of work, but I agree that it is too heavy on the synthesis of primary material to sit well with the sourcing balance that is expected for a WP article. It's a shame because there's easily enough review and meta-analysis material in there to pass muster for a topic - e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. BUT the synthesis, well-referenced as it may be, is very heavy here.
Starting from the end, most of the primary source overkill is located in the "Traits" section - that, I believe, is really out of scope, what with pulling together almost 200 (!) primary research results. Personally I quite like having this available - looks like a great resource; but the arguments against it do have grounding in policy. - Sections "Benefits", "Disadvantages" and "Interpretation" seem well reasoned, but they are reasoned - they consist of conclusions drawn by the author from an assembly of primary material. Again, no good for an encyclopedia. Section "Implementations" I don't find troublesome because it just lists available software approaches, and boy do we ever have a tradition of that. "History" I think works because it's mostly a chronological assembly of material, which doesn't really fall under "synthesis". The lede reads well but I assume that much of it would have to be removed if one took away the original reasoning sections.
Overall, yes, most of the meat of this article is too synthetic for local consumption. I wish it could be cut down to what's reasonable, though, instead of deleted, because there's a lot of effort and expertise here that would be a shame to just chuck out. If the author could just get this entire thing published as a review article in a journal, then one could go to town with that source... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I've only just looked at Genetic correlation, and it's the same in green. Great work, wrong venue, cutting it down would be a lot of effort but may be worth it.

References

  1. ^ Eric Turkheimer ("Still Missing", Turkheimer 2011)
  2. ^ "Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics", Plomin et al 2016
  3. ^ "Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies", Polderman et al 2015
  4. ^ "Still Chasing Ghosts: A New Genetic Methodology Will Not Find the 'Missing Heritability'", Charney 2013
  5. ^ "Knowns and unknowns for psychophysiological endophenotypes: Integration and response to commentaries", Iacono et al 2014
  6. ^ Krishna Kumar, Siddharth; Feldman, Marcus W.; Rehkopf, David H.; Tuljapurkar, Shripad (2016-01-05). "Limitations of GCTA as a solution to the missing heritability problem". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (1): E61–70. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520109113. ISSN 1091-6490. PMC 4711841. PMID 26699465.
--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Elmidae would you be open to draftification rather than deletion? That would be OK with me; this should not be in mainspace until it is cleaned/done over... Gwern what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem reasonable to me, but would of course depend on Gwern's interest in reworking the articles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree. There would be no point to attempting to get this published as it is merely compiling what has already been published; everything is drawn from the provided references, whether that's Neale's textbook, Plomin's textbook, Lee's review, the many phenome papers, the Cheverud's conjecture papers, and so on and so forth. It's all heavily cited, to a fault. Everyone here is freely claiming that this is 'all synthesis' or OR, and yet, no one is giving examples of what they think the OR is.
As far as Vrie0006's comment goes: we already discussed it, and I support moving the trait references out to the relevant trait articles as part of their genetic coverage. The information about the genetic heritability or correlations about most traits on WP is in terrible shape, and that's part of why I was compiling the section, as a draft for adding to other articles. I do not have time now to do so myself (and even less time if I must deal with spurious AfDs launched to retaliate against me for my comments on another AfD); Vrie was, however, less interested in helping with this and more interested in deleting them wholesale, and of course I did not support that idea. --Gwern (contribs) 16:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gwern, as a concrete example - the start of the "Interpretation" section:
GCTA estimates are often misinterpreted as "the total genetic contribution", and since they are often much less than the twin study estimates, the twin studies are presumed to be biased and the genetic contribution to a particular trait is minor.[35] This is incorrect, as GCTA estimates are lower bounds.
A more correct interpretation would be that: GCTA estimates are the expected amount of variance that could be predicted by an indefinitely large GWAS using a simple additive linear model (without any interactions or higher-order effects) in a particular population at a particular time given the limited selection of SNPs and a trait measured with a particular amount of precision. Hence, there are many ways to exceed GCTA estimates - followed by examples based on half a dozen primary studies, finished off with an apparently novel example calculation. That is your synthesis, and your original composition of previously unrelated material into an argument structure. Which is fine for a journal article, but not for a Wikipedia article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely seems at first glance to be a synthesis and analysis, which would be very concerning in a Wiki article - but chasing down the sources, the article cited here, "Still Chasing Ghosts," itself makes the point that GCTA estimates are often misinterpreted, in exactly the way described by Gwern. That source is a secondary source, and the summary in the text of the wiki entry which seems to obviously be analysis is basically distilling the points made in that article. So the analysis in the wiki article seems to be exactly the type of tertiary summary of secondary analyses that we want on wikipedia. The following examples are, it seems, largely taken from that source, but the points are in "Chasing ghosts" and are cited to other appropriate secondary sources. Perhaps it is bad form to even cite the primary sources in the wiki article, but again, this isn't synthesis of primary sources, it's detailing the syntheses done elsewhere in several secondary sources, with examples from primary sources. If the primary sources themselves are a problem, they could simply be removed, instead of requiring significant re-editing. Davidmanheim (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be nice if the article could be put into shape in situ rather than anything more drastic, as the material is good and well-presented. As noted above, quite a number of reviews and meta-analyses are already used as sources, and if those could be substantially emphasized over the primary sources that should do it. But I suspect that requires a fair amount of insight into the research and where it's buried, and thus would really best be undertaken by the original author if they are willing. (Re primary sources, they are certainly wanted in science articles - for a start we would lose many thousands of taxonomy articles/stubs if they weren't! - but they shouldn't form the skeleton of anything resembling an argument structure, plus WP:MEDRS is particularly leery of them.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some of these concerns could be addressed through relatively moderate phrasing modifications, such as including statements like "a 2015 meta-analysis by Polderman et al. found that..." in appropriate places. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable topic and more than enough references. ♟♙ (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for entirely missing the point, mate. Truly a "drive-by" comment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the unhelpful attitude. ♟♙ (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Per Elmidae and Jytdog's discussion. GREML (at intro of article) does get used in genetic analyses like genome wide association mapping to the point I even recognize it from skimming papers, but the state of the article just isn't ready for mainspace. The topic can have very concise content and be notable, but I also can't vote keep due to all the synthesis, etc. mentioned above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I'm not sure what that means but FOR SURE this page should not be merged with Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis for many reasons. First and foremost, genetic correlations should not be equated in any way with GCTA. GCTA is a software tool, not a scientific concept. Genetic correlations can be calculated in many, many ways including pedigrees, twins, adoptees, GCTA, and others still. However, and as I've said on the talk page, the article as written leaves much to be desired. For example, the lists of trait pairs, as much work as it represents, should be entirely deleted IMO, with perhaps a few notable examples. The original research on this page is not a resource for the field, and such a resource is not effective as a wikipedia page. I offered to help in the past but found the page's primary author was highly protective, which is understandable. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry, missed the point here that there was no discussion of merge, but rather that both pages were nominated for deletion. I would still say draftify, but draftify here means deleting tons of content. I'm OK with that. Vrie0006 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify both per Elmidae's comments above. These look to be the start of a viable review article, but that's not what we publish. However, the problem may not be intrinsic to the article; that is, it might be remediable through ordinary editing. That editing should take place in the Draft area. In addition, many of the citations appear to be to preprints, which in this case violates WP:MEDRS. Links to preprints (arXiv, biorXiv, faculty websites, etc.) should be provided as supplements to journal versions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you quote the part of MEDRS which bans preprints like Arxiv or Biorxiv, which are increasingly the main publishing venues of these fields? For example, He was urged at the CRISPR conference to upload his article on the CRISPR babies to Biorxiv; which part of MEDRS would ban citing this upload? --Gwern (contribs) 16:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:MEDRS, with emphasis added in places: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials. Preprints on arXiv and biorXiv are primary sources that have not undergone peer review. In some circumstances, preprints can be cited as sources for expert opinion (the relevant bit of policy being WP:SPS). In other cases, a preprint might effectively be "reviewed" in secondary sources before it is formally published. I don't think that those exceptions apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That it discussing primary sources for medical outcomes, where it is possible that "unreliable or preliminary information" will be presented. The concern there - that non-peer reviewed information from clinical trials about medicine will be repeated - is not really relevant here. In any case, I'm confused how that section of the rules is relevant for statistical analyses of public data that are increasingly never published in journals. Davidmanheim (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that we're not talking about clinical-trial results here, but the article does concern the scientific study of human beings, which is always cause to tread carefully. And if there's an entire body of research that never gets formally reviewed, then the question of how we could potentially cite that work is a much bigger question than this one AfD. As it stands now, citations to non-reviewed work are generally Considered Harmful. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve with greater stress on the methodological problems of GCTA. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've removed the absurdly long tables of correlations; if there are secondary sources talking about these they would still need to be re-written from scratch to be in a format useful to readers. I don't see any rationale for deleting the rest of the articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above; also a bad-faith nomination by a user who has since left Wikipedia "under a cloud". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering when the Jytdog grave-dancers would turn up. This rationale is complete bullshit and lowers my opinion of you a lot, Andy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pigsonthewing: Even without reviewing the article to decide whether I'm for keeping, draftifying or othering this article, I can tell the above ad hominem comment is in extremely poor taste. You should retract it or expect to have eyes on you for your grave-dancing and personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as needed. This is typical deletionist overreach (typical of this user, who has by my count nominated 162 articles for deletion!). If something is wrong with an article, fix it instead of culling it. Deletion should only be used for topics that don't meet notability requirements. Genetic correlation and genome-wide complex trait analysis are obviously important scientific concepts that merit good coverage in Wikipedia. Deleet (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, another one. You are entirely wrong, by the way; lack of notability is one of 14 defined deletion criteria. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you know, you might just be wrong. ♟♙ (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have to agree with Elmidae that some of the recent keep !votes are superficial and not really digging into the actual state of the articles, which basically means they don't get counted in weighing consensus. Not to mention that some are here blatantly violating WP:FOC. They seem to be focused on continuing battleground behavior instead, which is disruptive to the AfD. Plus, simply being notable and sourced does not equal a keep in all cases as demonstrated with the draftify comments. That being said, no one could claim a deletion nomination was bad-faith considering this could just as easily be merged into Genome-wide association study. I wouldn't mind seeing the daughter article myself, hence my !vote, but deleting and fleshing out a little bit of the unique stuff with new secondary sourced content at GWAS is doable too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They "dig into the state of the articles" just fine. The closing admin will determine what is counted and what isn't and your aspersion casting on those with whom you disagree is offensive. Please stop assuming bad faith. ♟♙ (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption here (on my part as well) is not of bad faith (in contrast to Andy above, btw) but of lack of understanding of the problem under discussion. The only possible yardstick for that is the content of your contribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made no such assumption. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I was pretty clear that those comments like yours barely even superficially address the issues the most of the draftify !votes were discussing in some detail. Please remember that WP:CON policy requires that such comments are ignored. Also remember not to cast aspersions like you just did either. We already have enough people interjecting their behavior issues into this AfD that's attracting more drama than most science AfDs that come up on my watchlist. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reviewed both the article, and the discussion. It seems clear that the article can be improved and brought more in line with wiki policies on citations and original research - though it is not clear exactly where the issues are. Large parts of the article are clearly not original research, so any issues with original research should be dealt with via discussion about editing the article, not the AfD process. The fact that the discussion is about whether or not specific parts of the article violates specific guidelines, and the exact ways in which it does so, is exactly the reason that Wikipedia policy says that AfD is inappropriate for "Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Davidmanheim (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both GCTA is new but notable – see Genetics, Health, and Society, for example. It is likewise easy to find good sources for the genetic correlation topic too. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew... do you ever do ANYthing but plaster "is notable, has sources, some random wikilinks" into these discussions? No-one has ever contested that! I would like it if the article were being kept and cleaned up, but man the knee-jerk superficial !votes are really dispiriting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination complains that the topics in question are unsourced or based on primary sources. The links that I provided point to secondary and tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Genetics. The argument of the nomination is thereby refuted. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that you need read nothing on the page except the nom statement at this stage, that is certainly an explanation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, nobody has agreed with the nomination's proposition that these topics should be deleted from Wikipedia and moved to another project such as Wikiversity. Even Elmidae's !vote is a keep and so it's unclear why Elmidae is so intent on insulting other editors who agree with his position. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intent on pointing out what a pile of ill-considered !votes results from people a) substituting their dislike of the nominator for sound engagement, and b) phantasizing that pure notability is the only keep/delete criterion in existence. That the direction of these autopilot comments tends to the side I happen to agree with in this case is somewhat incidental. Guess I'm just disappointed - in-depth contributions like those of Davidmanheim above provide a really good basis for coming to a conclusion, and then we get another 50% of... this stuff to muddy the waters. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the nominator that, as the articles were written at the time of nomination, they were more suitable for another project (e.g., Wikiversity) than for here. I was more optimistic than the nominator about how easily the articles could be brought into compliance with policies (particularly WP:SYNTH). I was somewhat less optimistic than Elmidae was, apparently, since my inclination was that the revisions should go on over in Draft land. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the nominator eventually said draftify, Elmidae who originally said keep in their initial statement was pretty open to draftify, and a bunch of other editors said the same. That's far from just keeps. Your second to last sentence is violating WP:FOC policy and more or less requires your comments here to be ignored at the close. Editors have been responding to people interjecting their behavior issues into this AfD, so that should be more than enough caution for you to knock off the sniping or try to turn it back on those responding to it. Any more of that really should be dealt with in admin forums at this point since that behavior has functioned to disrupt the AfD already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . The topics clearly pass GNG and problems with the articles are being addressed by various knowledgeable editors. This discussion is getting sidetracked by comments on the nominator and this distracts from the article itself. A keep !vote is not a !vote for or against the nominator’s drama. Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 6 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. Sandstein 10:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RegularChains[edit]

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

Article based on a single primary source authored by the creator of the article (WP:COI). No secondary source. No indication of notability. Moreover it is nothing else than description of the features of a specific implementation. This is thus not an encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete academic spam. Content for their faculty or lab webpage, not WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page is written in a style of a manual, which means that it is too technical (WP:TECHNICAL) for readers to understand. The article does not cite any source so it maybe a crafted by the creator (User:M.Moreno-Maza). Article may already be explained in this page Venomous Sniper (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of in-depth secondary sources about this package putting it into context with other software for the same topic. Even with such sources, most or all of the present text would have to be removed or rewritten, so WP:TNT is in play as well. I'm not a big fan of WP:NOTHOWTO in general, but this seems to be a prime case where that part of policy is justified. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, Fails reliable sources.Alex-h (talk) 09:21, 5 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. Sandstein 10:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Rak[edit]

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

Procedural (my !vote is to keep). This was prodded and deleted last year - as I discovered while trying to link to the article. I feel that it may be borderline, but if this artist has had murals in places as far afield as Poland, New York, and New Zealand, she may well be notable enough for an article. A google news search also turns up quite a secondary references. Grutness...wha? 10:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Commissions of public murals in multiple countries, and sufficient coverage exists, e.g. [28], [29], [30], with further sources such as [31], [32]. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Street art and coverage in multiple countries, meets WP:BASIC at least. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 2 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) 07:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Socialist Web Site[edit]

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

The website was number 41,992 by popularity in the world in September 2017 and has since sunk even lower. Do we really need articles about sites as small and unpopular as this one (especially those that routinely post russian propaganda)? P.S. Optionally we can discuss merging the article into the article about the Fourth International Openlydialectic (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are from the site itself or completely unrelated, fails WP:A7 startTerminal {haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's being referred to in articles from various reputable sources the Washington Times for example. As such its reasonable for people to look it Wikipedia to see what its about. While 41,992 seems a large number in the context of 644,000,000 or whatever active websites its actually fairly near the top end and while not comparable with top newsites is in the appropriate range with some newspaper regionals and the better alternative media outlets. I'm not persuaded by a merge and it might cause more problems than it would solve; I'd like to see these entities kept separate. The results from the previous AfD also seem to remain valid.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • selective Merge to International Committee of the Fourth International, the ORG of which it is the website. Page is heavily PRIMARY sourced and there does not appear to be a lot of SIGCOV. WP:RS coverage of this web page. World Socialist Website appears to be in more common usage than World Socialist Web Site. There is a listing [33] in The Guardian describing "World Socialist Website: Internet centre of the International Committee of the Fourth International, which opposes war on Iraq, and more generally the capitalist market system." Several reliable-looking books [34] also describe it as a website of the International Committee of the Fourth International.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Djm-leighpark.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that despite assertions in the 2007 AfD that WP:SIGCOV exists, and a decade of talk page discussions about the need for and attempts to provide INDEPTH, INDEPENDENT sources, this page is still almost devoid of INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT sources. For over a decade it has stood as a shining example of Wikipedia:Citation overkill relying on PRIMARY sources. Drive-by assertions of notability, and finding a mention of this site in the Washington Times are not helpful. What we need is actual INDEPENDENT, SIGCOV. I suspect that an editor familiar with the internecine struggles between Trotskyites and other socialist movements could help us out here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the deletion rationale is supposed to be that the site's Alexa rank is 41,992 (it's now 49,754), and that the site is "small and unpopular." The WSWS is listed in Category:American news websites [35], where the first five pages listed under the first alphabetic heading "A" are:
The WSWS has a higher ranking than all these sites. Of all sites listed under “W”, the WSWS is ranked lower than seven (beaten, for instance, by weather.com), but is ranked higher than six (including higher than our own flagship news service, wikinews.org).
Another supposed rationale for deletion is that the site "routinely post[s] russian [sic] propaganda." That allegation is not a rationale for deletion. Nor is it supported by any evidence. That's not surprising: the site routinely attacks the Putin government and Russian oligarchy [36][37][38]. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Trotskyism knows that Trotskyists opposed both the Stalinist regime and the later restoration of capitalism.
A search on Google Scholar shows the site is cited by thousands of academic publications. The site was referenced just yesterday by Taibbi in ‘’Rolling Stone’’ [39], and last year the NYT, on the front page of their technology section, dedicated an article to the WSWS’ claim that google’s new search algorithm demotes left wing sites [40].
Obviously this is a strong keep. -Darouet (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' - invald rationale; reasonably notable, often cited / republished. At the same time the article is full of original research: "red flags": phrases like "articles are often collated" suppotred only by refs to the very these "collated" articles. Same with "periodically undertakes", etc. Someone please prune these mercilessly. Unfortunately I am computerly endifficultened :). - üser:Altenmann >t 05:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Y
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Although the article is poor, full of superfluous puff, and poorly sourced, mainly from primary sources, I think the topic itself is notable enough to keep the article or, as per EM Gregory sensible suggestion, merge with that of the organisation which runs it, and then work on improving the sourcing and removing fluff. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 7 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. Lourdes 08:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip Neupane[edit]

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

Unreliable reference Binod Basnet (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While the nominator has made no valid argument for deletion, a search for evidence of notability found nothing. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the 'unreliable reference' in the article isn't itself a valid reason to delete, I can't find any mentions anywhere apart from self-publicising websites, so seems to fail notability. GirthSummit (blether) 14:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.Azkord (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable without reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 09:32, 5 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Gorbunov[edit]

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

Nauseatingly promotional, bought-and-paid-for biography of a commercial scientist. The subject does not pass WP:PROF: he doesn't hold an academic position; the number of citations to his work is modest; and none of the societies mentioned in the article are selective or prestigious. No indication of meeting the WP:GNG either. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically per nom. A promotional paid biography. Citability data for the subject in GScholar is fairly modest, and there is nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of exceptional (or even borderline) prominence that could pass WP:PROF and/or make up for the promotionalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the nomination and the above !votes have it pretty much right. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the evidice presented Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 5 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. As nominated, the article no longer qualifies for deletion. Indeed, at the time of nomination the article did not have any sources that support any statement made about the person (diff), qualifying for deletion as per WP:BLPPROD as an unsourced biography of a living person. However, a reliable source that supports some content has since been added to the article (diff), which has entirely negated the rationale for deletion herein. North America1000 05:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karna Das[edit]

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

Does not cite any sources. Binod Basnet (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If you find an article that doesn't cite sources, there are maintenance tags that can be added to the article. It doesn't need to come to AfD unless insufficent sources exist. Whether or not there is enough out there I don't know. An article here about him which states that he "became a household name", and I also found a couple more that mention him ("popular singers such as Karna Das", [41]). The majority of coverage is likely to be in non-English language sources. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a few more English language sources, though how reliable they are, I'm not sure. Nepalese Voice Australia reported on a concert in Melbourne in 2016 [42]; 977 News Network refers to 3 of his songs becoming chartbusters here [43] (the Wikipedia listing of national music charts does not include any for Nepal, though); Boss Nepal is an online magazine, which has a page about him with more biographical details and more album names, which could be useful to follow up [44]. I agree that most sources are likely to be in other languages - the ones we have found in English do indicate his status as a very popular, well known, chart-topping singer in Nepal, and I would expect to find more evidence of that in Nepali, etc. Would be useful to do WP:BEFORE before nominating for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Karna Das is legendary of Nepal. you can find hundereds of notable references about him i've added one notable references for now and will add other reliable sources soon. Azkord (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:10, 2 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) 07:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kusume Rumal 2[edit]

Kusume Rumal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not cite any sources. Binod Basnet (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sources do exist, including in English two articles in the Himalayan Times, one made during filming [45], and one a review after release [46]. Whether the film meets the notability guidelines for films is another question, and would probably need reference to non-English language sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sequel of Kusume Rumal and here are few reliable sources which shows the notability [47] and awarded here. [48] Azkord (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Himalyan Times review and News of Nepal and other reviews so passes criteria1 of WP:NFILM and deserves to be included and improved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:09, 8 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. Clear consensus that notability has been established - and that there are additional sources in-discussion that could be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Radasky[edit]

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

I am not sure there is anything that supports notability claim Arthistorian1977 (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Many survivors aren't notable. This particular one, however, beyond the USHMM coverage (in the article) has been covered in a number of books - [49][50][51] and quoted - [52].Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, I will say that Solomon Radasky is not as tier 1 notable individual like Elie Wiesel, but not reaching that level of fame does not exclude him from being considered for notability or worthy of his experiences to be included. Yes simply being a survivor does not make you notable, agreed, but having your stories published, included in the Holocaust museums, and included in journal articles, and newspapers from what I understand is notable. This article was created as part of the follow-up research from an Edit-a-thon to expanded under-represented individuals about holocaust survivors on Wikipedia. The individual did research, and asked me to revise it and after seeing some of books listed above, plus [53] (sorry it is not showing up on google books for a preview) and a journal article on Jstore [54] I felt this warranted as consideration as all the checkboxes I feel were needed to be checked were checked when looking at coverage of the person's life. I did ask the question of if there was any media coverage on the individual, which is not necessary but also helps establish notability. The results were not in English, but still published in a foreign press/newspaper [55]. That only thing I could not establish for notability is that he did not publish his own book or memoirs, but that does not exclude him from being notable as others covered his story for him and many survivors are not authors. It is absolutely true that many individuals do not even rise to a level of notability worthy of a Wikipedia article, but I put some time into this because there was in fact coverage from a man who died almost 15 years ago.Kayz911 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be improved to include some of the citations mentioned here and listed in the Interview with Radasky section, but there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable to me. I converted some books to formatted footnotes; it looks like they should be reviewed for self-published sources, not sure all of them are worth keeping. But overall it appears that notability is well established by a diverse array of sources, and I'm not sure why this was nominated in light of WP:BEFORE. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Holocaust survivor. I've added a bit about his prominent involvement in a protest against American Neo-Nazis in 1961, surprisingly not covered at all before.--Pharos (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am adding my name to the list in favor of keeping this article, but I think it is already clearly established that this meets notability guidelines. Echoing what others have said here, this article probably could use more content and cited sources. However, that's not a notability problem - the article simply needs to be expanded. Given that is was created at an edit-a-thon event it is a good start for a new editor and we should be encouraging them to add to the article, not trying to delete it. Frankcjones (talk) 01:00, 7 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) 07:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stone (musician)[edit]

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

Not a notable musician. He left Van Halen long before they became notable, and has not done anything relevant since then, JDDJS (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Van Halen article's formation and early years section; no need for a separate wikipedia entry for an otherwise non-notable member. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shelby's idea to redirect to Van Halen's article is a good one, except that there are several other notable people in Wikipedia named Mark Stone and I find it unlikely that someone would use "Mark Stone (musician)" as a search term. In either case, this guy's impact both in and out of Van Halen is too scant to justify an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 2 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. Lourdes 08:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish supercentenarians[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech supercentenarians this page suffers from Poland's border shifting. None of the three people were born in Poland (all born before the modern state was founded) and one of the two that died did not die in Poland but in Ukraine. If someone neither were born or died in Poland why are they on a Poland list exactly? There are no RS that discuss the topic of Polish Super old people so it fails WP:NLIST. The three people on the list belong on the List_of_supercentenarians_by_continent#European_supercentenarians if they qualify for inclusion. I'll note that this is just the latest of many super old peopel by country lists that have been rolled into List of supercentenarians by continent by AfD vote over the last few years. There is excellent precident to remove this page. Legacypac (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 1. The person who nominated the article for deletion gave false information on the deathplace of people listed. All of them died or are still living in Poland; not Ukraine. 2. The fact that the people were born at the time Poland was not independent is irrelevant. The article lists persons by the country of last residence. 3. The article is properly referenced with a reliable source and press citations. 4. The two previous AfD of the same article were closed as KEEP (one in 2016 and the other as recent as in Aug. 2018!) 5. The person who has nominated the article for deletion also did it in 2016 using the same arguments. This is the violation of WP:NPOV and it is a reason for the consideration of topic ban for Legacypac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A massive zebra (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really - you have not used this account for 6 years than you just happen upon this AfD to protest and suggest a topic ban, displaying a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia lingo for someone with so few edits. Which other accounts do you use? Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to be active on Wikipedia all of the time. Indeed, I've been active on-and-off on Wikipedia for the last several years. Futurist110 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your editing history Futurist110 - zebra makes a few edits, then nothing for 6 years, then magically finds this AfD? Pretty amazing. Futurist110 sure sounds like the handle of a supercenturian fan. The analysis of non-110 hobbiests should be goven due weight. The last AfD was hardly a ringing endorsement of the article. Everyone should read that one. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article actually closed as no consensus back in 2016, not keep. Can you provide any policy or guideline based reasoning for keeping this article? Or provide sources that aren't GRG tables or local birthday articles/obituaries that actually discuss this particular data set? CommanderLinx (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I completely agree with A massive zebra's arguments and analysis here. Futurist110 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests you did not look at the article because their "facts" are plainly refuted by the page. Poland did not exist as a country when any of these people were born. "a^ Juniewicz was born in Krupsko near Lviv, which was then part of Austria-Hungary. It is now in Ukraine. b^ Dranka was born in Harklowa, which was then part of Austria-Hungary." Also the zebra appears to be a topic ban evading sockpuppet by behavioral evidence [56] Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly should it matter that Poland didn't exist as a country yet at the time of their birth? Also, A massive zebra is British while Waenceslaus is Polish. If you don't believe me, you can go check out the 110 Club forum. Futurist110 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
aww, so you are coming from off site canvasing then? Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by that? Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fanfluff listcruft. Insufficient content to justify a stand-alone article per WP:NOPAGE. Dubious definition given that Poland does not have a consistent history of nationhood during the period in question. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the obvious Snakes in Iceland problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOPAGE as no reliable sources discuss supercentenarians from Poland as a group, and the three entries on this list are far too few to justify a stand-alone article. The listed individuals are also all too young to be added to the List of supercentenarians by continent, so there is no point redirecting it anywhere. None of this content is needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Fails WP:NLIST, even if we dismiss the arguments about the definition of Poland. Nothing to preserve in European or worldwide lists of old people due the Polish members' "young" age. — JFG talk 11:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - Fails WP:LISTN as no sources discuss this particular data set. Three names does not make a notable list. If they're mentioned elsewhere or this can be redirected to a better target such as Europe I'm fine with that too. I appreciate someone adding the NOTAVOTE tag as the two above keeps votes clearly know each other on the 110 club forum so would not surprise me if some sort of off-Wiki canvassing has been going on again. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much what LP said. The OR around defining the individuals as Polish is the main concern. There's nothing really to merge/redirect to, as the the European list cuts off at 50 names, with the last one being a year older than the oldest entry on the Polish list. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOPAGE per above. SportingFlyer talk 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep. It is important to notice that there is only 1 general article of supercentenarians of all the continents, it is important there to be more articles separating supercentenarians by geography for younger supercentenarians to be listed somewhere on wikipedia. Furthermore, reaching the age of 110 is a feat of notice, it deserves a footnote on wikipedia (when the person is a supercentenarian and is one of the 100 oldest ever of a country), even if that means being only listed on a country list. Garlicolive talk 19:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. So nice of you to join us to vote on three super old people pages. [57]. If you had some demonstrated understanding of our policies there might be a reason to spend time debating your thoughts. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome. Although you claim that I lack in knowledge about the policies of Wikipedia, and not only that, you imply that me voting in 3 threads of supercentenarians is somehow bad. Well, just take a look and realize that in many of the recent nominated AfD of the supercentenarians there is the same, the same group of people who are voting in many articles. I feel some hypocrisy, sorry for the words, but if its bad for me it is bad for . DerbyCountyinNZ, it is bad for The Blade of the Northern Lights, it is bad for Newshunter12, and it is bad for CommanderLinx. These 4 all are voting to delete many articles of supercentenarians, oddly they only vote to delete and almost like in group, odd I would add.Garlicolive (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of us have a prior history of doing things other than voting in supercentenarian discussions. This article has a long history of people recruiting people to use Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting a certain way in longevity discussions and, whether or not it's the case for you, from the other discussions you voted in it's abundantly clear that's happened again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:59, 7 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. Lourdes 08:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slice (app)[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 100,000+ downloads on Google Play and over 45,000 reviews on Itunes. While the sources aren't the most reliable, I feel like that chould be applied as a simple maint tag, not a deletion. (also, being private doesn't make a company less notable) startTerminal {haha wow talk page | waste_of_space#4023 on discord} 03:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment: number of downloads & user-generated reviews are not part of WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources seem sufficient Boston Globe, New York Times, New York Times Business Journal, Inc, CNBC, Mashable, Business Insider — not sure what message would be sent if this were deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage already cited in the article is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 9 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. Lourdes 08:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vogue Portugal cover models[edit]

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

Proposing deletion of this article and am prepared to propose deletion of other Vogue cover model articles like it that don’t actually have corresponding Wikipedia articles. Evidently, original research is at work here. I’m not going to insert my opinion that “some” Vogues are more prestigious than others but why should a Vogue without an article have this encyclopedic detail of its cover models? Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No comment on your other arguments, but how could identifying who is on the cover and who the photographer was possibly involve OR? postdlf (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Postdlf: Clearly this article is tagged tagged as unreferenced, so as far as I’m concerned this specific red link editor User:Arijansumanti whose sole priority is editing most of the “cover model” pages, in addition to the random IPs, are doing some sort of original research for these covers / models and their nationalities. You would think as much effort as they put into these tables they’d take 2 seconds to reference the sites they got it from. The original research policy is no reliable sources, no article.Trillfendi (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any published work is a reliable source for its own content, so again I don't see how this could be original research, unless the magazine somehow fails to credit the people who worked on it. You're also confusing lack of secondary sources (or lack of formatted citations or footnotes) with lack of sources, given that we have specific issues of this magazine identified in every instance and so know exactly where to seek to verify information on each cover. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Of course each issue has a photographer, the models don’t trip and land on a cover. But I was always told analyzing and extracting info from photos without sources is original research.Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, unless the magazine somehow failed to expressly credit the cover photographer and model, no one is just eyeballing the photo itself to figure those things out. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The cover of Time is notable, Vogue not so much, Vogue Portugal less than that. Nobody writes about the people on that last one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being on the cover of Vogue (American version at least) is no less notable than Time, just a different demographic than Time. American Vogue is premier fashion magazine of the world. No different than being on the cover of Vanity Fair, GQ, etc. But when it comes to these minor or unknown markets such as Portugal, which we never ever hear about and when it’s completely unsourced it makes no sense to have it here.Trillfendi (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tentatively. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I would push back against clarityfiend's statement about Vogue covers/cover models not being a notable topic. That said, Vogue Portugal I'm not so sure about, and certainly notability isn't inherited from the parent publication['s covers]. I think it's a reasonable standard that to be considered for a separate list like this, we should at least have an article on the magazine first. We probably wouldn't have a list of accolades for a band without an article on the band or a bibliography of an author without an article about the author, for example... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:03, 8 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. Sandstein 09:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nationality[edit]

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

Strange mix of North and South Korean nationalities without sources on such an entity. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Gnome. There's no reason to believe that the combination of North Korean citizenship and South Korean citizenship is a thing. The ethnic group Koreans has a well-established article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 2 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. Lourdes 08:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicco Fertitta[edit]

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

While he is a starting player on one of the top college football teams, he does not meet any of the four core criteria in WP:NCOLLATH beyond routine media coverage about signing with Notre Dame or game recaps. Notre Dame's biography of him does not indicate that he received any national awards, and his current season stats do not indicate an All-American in the making.

The South Bend Tribune [58] and SB Nation's Notre Dame website [59] have done profiles of Fertitta, but neither meets the "national media attention" requirement in NCOLLATH.

Also, just because he comes from the notable Fertitta business family (his father is Lorenzo Fertitta of Ultimate Fighting Championship fame) does not mean Nicco meets WP:BIO. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Starting defensive players at top-tier schools like Notre Dame tend to generate enough press to pass WP:GNG and this one seems to have done so. Beyond the significant number of mentions in other news articles, there are two feature articles in Sports and Las Vegas Sun that show a clear pass of the general notability guideline. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A corrected link to the NBC Sports story is here. While it is an example of national media coverage, it appears to be WP:ROUTINE because it was part of a series analyzing every player on the Notre Dame roster hence the title "Notre Dame 99-to-2". Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE by any stretch-- (far beyond the threshold of "sports scores". Further, WP:ROUTINE only applies to events and not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since they're doing an article on every Notre Dame player, you're essentially making the claim that nbcsports.com articles make every Notre Dame player notable. I don't think that's true. In addition, I would claim the contract that NBC has to televise every Notre Dame game through at least 2025 means this coverage is not independent. Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to make the arguments at WP:ROUTINE mean more than they do not. The shortcut tag is the word "routine" but that is an over-simplification. And as I noted earlier, WP:ROUTINE applies to events only, not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're referring to. I never mentioned WP:ROUTINE. All the depth charts and statistics show he's not the starting free safety (see my comment below). Of the two sources you mention in your vote, one is the local paper talking about a high school player and the other is the not-independent NBC series on every Notre Dame player. Papaursa (talk) 03:21, 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 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCOLLATH. In response to the sources presented above, we should not be using feature articles from when players are in high school (excluded per the young athlete rule) or from sites which pay to promote the particular team to make college players notable under WP:GNG. No problem with recreating once he passes WP:NCOLLATH. SportingFlyer talk 04:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Where is this supposed "young athlete rule" and surely if it exists it only applies while the subject is under the age of 18.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:YOUNGATH pretty clearly excludes most high school sports coverage as routine. You can pass WP:GNG off of articles from high school sports, but we're talking something like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Peters_(pitcher) (I was on the wrong side of that one since I lumped four SI articles in as coverage from one source, but don't mind the result.) Furthermore relying on a high school sports feature article to show notability as a college athlete though doesn't seem logical. SportingFlyer talk 16:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, first I've seen that guideline. But it doesn't apply because the subject is a college level NCAA Division I FBS athlete and is not a "High school and pre-high school athlete"--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, a college player could fail WP:NCOLLATH but pass WP:GNG since he received coverage in high school, even though that coverage is nearly completely disqualified as routine by the above guideline. I don't think you can argue high school football coverage makes a college player notable. SportingFlyer talk 03:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how it's written up in the guideline you are referencing. It is "substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage" -- several years of coverage and clearly beyond simple scores... and as stated above WP:ROUTINE applies to events, not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you're trying to claim notability as a college player, you can't be reliant on high school sourcing. You could claim notability as a high school player who has had "substantial and prolonged coverage," but those situations are extremely rare, and clearly not met here. It doesn't make sense to say "he's a notable college player, he was covered in high school so passes WP:GNG!" That's specifically why WP:YOUNGATH exists. SportingFlyer talk 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read WP:YOUNGATH, it looks like it exists to prevent extraneous articles being written about young athletes. The subject is no longer a young athlete per that guideline, and has coverage in the news about his college career. There's no reason at this point not to use articles about him before college.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. But one of the two feature articles noted above covers him as a high school athlete, and can't be used to say he passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 09:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then use the hundreds of other mentions in the news.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to go weak delete on this one. If it looked like he has a decent shot at getting drafted, I would've voted in favor of keeping the page, but per ESPN he has no recorded stats in 5 of 12 games this year. I don't think that's enough to justify a page, especially since he has not won any individual awards (granted, that is harder since Notre Dame players can't get All-Conference honors). There are, however, a couple of what seem to be sources with significant coverage, but those are already idscussed at length above. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: He’s not even starter. Vote changes from weak delete to delete. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't believe WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON are met. He's not even Notre Dame's #1 free safety. Notre Dame Insider[60], Irish Sports Daily[61], and OurLads [62] all have him third on the team's depth chart. According to ESPN[63] he has made 12 tackles this year with 0 interceptions and 0 forced fumbles. Fellow ND free safety Alohi Gilman has 76 tackles, 2 interceptions, and 2 forced fumbles[64]. Not all Notre Dame players are notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment players can never start a game and still be notable as Rudy Ruettiger has proven soundly. Not being a starter is not an automatic fail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And when they make a film about Nicco Fertitta like they did about Rudy Ruettiger, I'll have no problem saying he's notable. So why did you claim he was a starter at Notre Dame and hence would "tend to generate enough press to pass WP:GNG"? Also, as I said above, neither of the "feature articles" you mentioned in your keep vote actually contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument was that because he isn't a starter then he's not notable. I argue that not starting doesn't mean that the path to notability is killed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument was that he wasn't notable because he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. I was merely refuting your claim that he was a starter at Notre Dame (and thus likely to meet GNG). Papaursa (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the nominator posted, I saw no reason to question that part.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCOLLATH isn't met, as it is bare and missing references. The article is barren, has NO information on his college career, and even the ESPN stats show nothing in 5 games. He's not a starter, he is third on the depth chat behind Alohi Gilman. Like as Papaursa said, not all Notre Dame players are notable. Charizard200 (talk) 18:56, 7 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, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Efficiency[edit]

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

Not notable, no coverage except for trivial passing mentions. DferDaisy (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 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. Closing early due to the sockfest and disruption. Consensus, based on far more opinions than most AfDs and ignoring the solicited "votes of editors with little or no other history, is abundantly clear. Only two editors with non-trivial history advocate Keep, and the basis of these arguments is poor (example: number of search its is an indication that reliable independent sources may well exist, but none have been provided). In the end, this person would not pass any of the relevant subject-specific notability guidelines, and does not pass GNG, as noted by several experienced !voters. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Kendrick[edit]

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

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a WP:BLPFRINGE currently only sourced to primary sources; I find a few articles by him on other sites but nothing about him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only mention of the Dr's opinion regarding statins in the main page is the statement "documents what the author perceived as the misguided use of statins in primary care". This appears to be an ad hominem attack "fringe figure" against the Dr due to disagreement with his very well documented premise in his book. The arguments and hypotheses he uses are well-researched and supported by a number of independent clinicians. Attempts to delete his entry amount to scientific censorship and should be resisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abamji (talk • contribs) 21:13, December 3, 2018 (UTC)
    Comment Those are not valid reasons. There is a lack of reliable sources that mention Malcolm Kendrick so that is why his article at Wikipedia should be deleted. But yes he is a fringe figure (only an extreme minority of researchers doubt the lipid hypothesis, mainstream science does not take him seriously (no academic journal reviewed his book etc). See the bottom section on the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics for criticism. I just went over Kendrick's personal website, he is basically a conspiracy theorist. He thinks a low-carb high-fat diet with massive cholesterol levels is healthy and the medical community and government are trying to supress this fact. You talk about "censorship" so you are probably a fan of his. You edited my comment [65] and wrote "He is a Gallileo of our times, saying what others fear to say". This is a sign of a conspiracy theorist, not science. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article subject's book being "reviewed in any science journals" is certainly not a prerequisite for the article subject possibly being notable by Wikipedia's standards. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Here is only one of the most recent research papers supporting Dr Kendrick's questioning of the lipid hypothesis" - The purpose of this discussion is not to discuss the lipid hypothesis, it is to discuss Kendrick. The paper you cited does not mention Kendrick. There are no peer-reviewed science papers that mention Kendrick's research in detail. His article should be deleted per lack of reliable sources. Let's see what other users think. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments to delete the book stem from citing a "majority of researchers" supporting a position. Unfortunately, that is not how science should evaluate the position of critics. It is open secret that the positions advocated by professional and scientific groups in favor of the lipid hypothesis are very, very, weak. Even within the last few years the AHA could only cite observational studies and highly confounded experimental interventions in favor of its advocacy of the lipid hypothesis. And the problematic nature of this fact is clear to anyone who has a modicum of training in statistics. For wikipedia to delete this entry means it has sided with arguments that are only based on appeals to authority and not scientific evidence. And no, citing consensus in a field where conclusions are nominally based on experimental evidence is not "scientific". In some disciplines, where experimental evidence is impossible to get that may be unavoidable, and there are clearly difficulties in obtaining experimental data with human subjects but the solution to that problem is not to rush to judgement or to side with those that would.Billwrlhopkins (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Billwrlhopkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abamji, Anarchie76, Billwrlhopkins have hardly any edits on Wikipedia but all voice the same conspiracy theory talk, two of these users were inactive on Wikipedia for months. I think this is a case of WP:MEAT. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Skeptic from Britain, you stated that 'his book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals'. Here is one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043330/. As for my contributions to Wikipedia, they are very variable in frequency, depending on my workload, and many take place in other language versions. Your slur is unjustified. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Anarchie76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Each wikipedia has its own notability rules. Your almost complete lack of experience in the English Wikipedia is reflected in your tenuous grasp of policies here. EEng 23:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason for proposing Kendrick's deletion appears to be on the content of his books, rather than on his written contribution to the cholesterol debate. But the entry is not about the cholesterol hypothesis it is a biographical entry, and as such it is an accurate and balanced statement of the man’s work. His books are bestsellers (449 reviews on the Great Cholesterol Con on Amazon). These reading figures validate him as being of public interest and therefore his entry is justified simply as a public figure. As for the books’ content, the cholesterol hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis. Given this, ANY opinion, short of cardiovascular disease being the work of fairies, is legitimate. Kendrick doesn’t have a specific opinion on what causes CVD, his blogs on the subject make that VERY plain (he is currently at part 52 or some such on ‘the causes of heart disease’ – this does not indicate a man who has a fixed idea of cholesterol’s role in CVD); what he does have an opinion on is that current scientific data does not fully support the cholesterol hypothesis and there is a lot of very contradictory evidence. Most researchers in the field would admit that there is contradictory evidence and the cholesterol hypothesis is far from water-tight, it’s just a best guess - hence the use of the word ‘hypothesis’ in its title. If scientists and writers are going to have their entries deleted simply because they question the current thinking then every researcher in every branch of science, particularly the outspoken or controversial ones, must also, for the sake of uniformity and fairness, have their entries deleted, and Wikipedia should make it clear that it does not contain up-to-date biographical detail of public figures but only the biographical detail of mainstream figures with no controversy surrounding their work. Pirate hamster (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— Pirate hamster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You have hardly any edits on Wikipedia and your last edit was 17 March 2011. How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does the number of edits and the date of them have to the topic of this proposed deletion? I take it Malcolm Kendrick's proposed deletion is not for his edit history? Pirate hamster (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests you're a sock or meatpuppet, which you are. EEng 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a sock-puppet in 2011 so that I could take part in this discussion in 2018? Now, that's what I call forward-planning. Leave the compound.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened many times. We call them sleepers. EEng 06:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you "call them sleepers" merely reveals a predilection for private buzz words to bolster your biases. A pet name doesn't lend a prejudice more validity just because you all agree to use it.Pirate hamster (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the term testifies to the existence of the phenomenon, which you questioned. I wish you'd stop trying to match wits, it's quite tiresome. EEng 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the 'term' testifies to is the abject need of amateurs to create an illusion of doing meaningful work, even if that means making up their own words. And I wouldn't dream of trying to "match wits" with you. That would be cruel.Pirate hamster (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic from Britain To answer your question, per his own website: yes. Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - author of several books, and a 5 second google news search show mentions in Guardian and Telegraph [66], and many other news sources. Deletion request seems to be more of a response to Kendrick's stance which is critical to the mainstream, but notability is pretty clear here. ATren (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been active on Wikipedia since 7 May 2015 yet you turn up here today. The socking and meat-puppetry on here has gotten out of hand. Other new accounts are still leaving comments here Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick talk Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can address my substantive points rather than attacking my lack of activity? ATren (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is some newspaper coverage, but this sets up a false balance, the Guardian article [67] was written by Kendrick himself and the others only mention Kendrick in a single sentence or two. In the Telegraph article[68] the British Heart Foundation disputed a study which Kendrick co-authored and claims was "robust". But none of these articles are specifically about Kendrick. Aseem Malhotra an associate of Kendrick has reliable sources on his article and newspaper coverage. Kendrick lacks reliable sources that discuss his ideas in any detail. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What a load of Bollux! @malcolmken is one of the most knowledgeable physicians out there explaining the truth about Cholesterol & diet heart hypothesis to the general public- deserves a knighthood at least 😡 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.230.253.14 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Skeptic from Britain is making a great deal of noise in this discussion about sock-puppets, criticising other contributors' edit history and debating the validity of new users while criticising long-time users, like myself, for being around too long! This strikes me as not only irrelevant (and deflective) but inflammatory. As for his demand: “How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates?” it should be pointed out that Kendrick is a popular author (this, after all, is what we are allegedly debating!), who has a lively blog where he talks about not only the science of cardiovascular disease, but also about the state of research and free discussion in medicine. Given that this is the essential nature of the author’s work, it is not only likely but a given that he would a) write about this proposed deletion and b) discuss it on his blog. To expect that he wouldn’t, or that this discussion could somehow be kept private for Wikipedia’s regular editors only, is naïve in the extreme – and bizarrely elitist. What’s more, it smacks of the very conspiracy ideology that Skeptic from Britain has accused Kendrick of exhibiting. The increased number of contributors entering into this discussion is not a conspiracy, it is the natural result of this proposed deletion being discussed on a popular site with high viewing figures – in itself, further proof that Kendrick is a pubic figure whose biographical entry should therefore remain.Pirate hamster (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster - I never said this discussion should be kept private, but the current keep votes are mostly invalid because they are not from active Wikipedia users, they are the result of an unethical canvassing scheme. Now we all know this is a canvassing issue [69], as users such as yourself have come from Kendrick's blog. There are twelve new accounts in the last 24 hours voting to keep Kendick's article on the deletion talk-page, some of which voted here. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:MEAT. I have never ever seen anything like this before on a Wikipedia deletion discussion. This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic - it is not "an unethical canvassing scheme" to ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history. Kendrick does not say "go in your droves and post on Wikipedia" or anything remotely like it. His sole interest in the matter is who you are and his sole 'canvassing' is "Perhaps user Skeptic from Britain would like to reveal himself and provide some information as to why he is so interested in trying to wipe me out? Perhaps one or two of you here could join in the discussion and see what emerges." No encouraging anyone to campaign for his redemption, no inciting riot, just an understandable need to know why you have singled him out for deletion, other than because you disagree with his hypotheses. You can’t be surprised by this as you make it very plain that you do indeed wish to delete his entry because you disagree with his hypotheses. That is quite straightforward censorship, hence the responses you are getting on here. And I have only "come from Kendrick's blog" in the sense that I read about the proposed deletion there. The fact that I have NOT tried to find out who you are, and couldn’t care less who you are, is proof that Kendrick’s alleged “canvassing” is not in play here and has, in fact, been ignored by everyone on here. All these contributors are here because they disagree with censorship, or because they believe strongly in Kendrick’s ideas, or because they support free medical discussion & debate of ideas. No-one is trying to find out who you are. I would also say, with all due respect, that you can't be crying "unethical" while you yourself are trying to remove a perfectly legitimate entry for a well-established and substantiated public figure simply because you disagree with his opinions. I'm afraid that is the very definition of unethical, and I'd like to think Wikipedia has some rules of its own on that one. Perhaps you have “never ever seen anything like this before” because you have never so blatantly tried to censor something before. Lastly, I’d just like to point out that you open your comment by saying “I never said this discussion should be kept private” and finish it by concluding “This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users.” I think you’ve kind of said it right there. Pirate hamster (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
So best you put a sock in it. EEng 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "created multiple accounts", I have one. My account was created 7 years ago, not "after discussion began" and I have no "vandalism" in my edit history. The ONLY criticism in your 'official' definition of sock-puppets that might apply to me is that I have few edits. This is because I am a regular (daily) Wikipedia user, but only an occasional editor. And that is because generally I don't find fault with the entries I read - this is only the second time I have seen an author I've read up for deletion - so unless Wikipedia has a policy stating that only editors are allowed to comment on deletions and that the opinions of frequent users have no place in Wikipedia discussions, nothing you have cited here refers to me, or is relevant to my contributions. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that you "put a sock in it". Pirate hamster (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News sources show some attention to his books. No coverage of him that I can see. EEng 05:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your argument - we should delete author's entries if newspapers only talk about what they write? Do you feel if the papers had discussed his shoes, his weight or his sex life that would give him more validity? He's a medical writer, not Kim Kardashian.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. No coverage, no article. Period. EEng 09:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster, please see Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for biographies. This is a policy-based discussion. Harassing or attempting to intimidate other editors won't affect the outcome of this discussion. Bradv🍁 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv Where have I "harassed" or "attempted to intimidate other editors"? I have only discussed the subject at hand, or answered repeated accusations of being a sock-puppet. Disagreeing with other editors is not harassing them and if they feel intimidated by my comments then they should think up sounder arguments instead of falling back on repeatedly referring to me as a sock-puppet, even going to so far as to tell me to "put a sock in it", in other words to shut up. Perhaps you do not consider repeated name-calling of sock-puppet to be harassment? Or you see no intimidation in a regular editor telling me to stop posting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate hamster (talk • contribs) 20:52, December 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics. Available sources don´t show notability of subject of this article, but few passing mentions are good enough for redirect to a page mentioning this man. It may be over-kill to protect the redirect then, but I feel there will be a push to recreate this article. Redirect can be created after deletion, so I´m also fine with the "delete" outcome. Pavlor (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note Malcolm Kendrick is on the Medical Advisory Board for "The Institute for Natural Healing". A naturopathic practitioner is also on their advisory board... (!) They claim on their website "We are fed up with the lies and stupidity of the medical establishment and are committed to exposing these falsehoods to the public." [70]. The website advertises "Your Cancer Risk in Half—7 All-Natural Ways to Activate Your Body's Healing Forces to Defeat Cancer" and promotes dubious vitamin supplements. This is cancer quackery. The institute has been described by the American Institute for Cancer Research [71] as misrepresenting data. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dr Kendrick has posted on his personal blog requesting that his readers !vote in this discussion, which explains the large number of new and suddenly-reactivated accounts commenting above. I would direct such users to the notice at the top of this page; unless you are making arguments based in Wikipedia policy, your statements will be disregarded by the closing administrator. Yunshui 雲水 09:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad, really. EEng 09:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help pointing out that one comment in Kendrick's blog was left by someone named (and I am not making this up) "Jonathan Bacon-Sandwich" [72]. EEng 09:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia Policy ... "Remember to assume good faith on the part of others" Tjamesjones (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero claim to notability in the article, and the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources just isn't there. Wikipedia does have articles about various fringe medicine topics and people associated with them, but only if they are notable. Redirecting to The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics would also be ok, since he is mentioned there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kendrick is a GP and doesn't have any background in lipidology, yet sells contrarian books about the lipid hypothesis, suggesting a missive multi-decade conspiracy. He uses well known conspiracy theorist tactics, such as cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, etc. E.g. He likes to state that, in studies, those with low cholesterol suffer more all cause mortality, but he fails to mention co-morbidity or reverse causation. He even made a ridiculous blog post stating that saturated fat cannot raise LDL cholesterol[1], despite nearly 400 metabolic ward studies proving this [2]. There is no mention of the meta-analysis of these metabolic ward studies in his blog post. Why? Because he likes to confuse, distract and sell books. He is a menace to society, suggesting people should eat an unhealthy diet, high in saturated fat, as well as refusing to take statins when prescribed. Swampf0etus (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/
  2. ^ https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long
  • Delete Good grief, he's a doctor, he shouldn't be allowed to write such crap, but fortunately he isn't notable, and we don't have to have an article about him. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the article were kept it would have to discuss the fact that Kendrick's theories are pseudoscientific; I suspect the many meatpuppets don't quite realise that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His opinion and the merits or dis-merits of his hypotheses are irreverent. He fails on notability, the article is a stub of a stub, and it's impossible to expand because there is no notable sourcing to be had. That being said this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is a co-signatory along with Sir Richard Thompson, President of the Royal College of Physicians and others, in a letter to the BMJ on statin prescribing. If he was a non-notable or a crank, he would not have been invited to join their august company. BMJ letter MartinFromWoodstock (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His contributions to the debate are not what's on the table here. His general notability, as defined by longstanding Wikipedia policy, is what's being discussed. So far, no one has been able to show how Dr Kendrick meets GNG on his own merits. As I mentioned in my !vote below, he has been quoted in pieces about the issue, but has not yet - or at least no reference has been provided to the effect - done any research himself or led a research team that has had its findings published in a reliable source. Please keep the discussion on task, which is to say, please keep it on the subject of the good doctor's independent notability. StrikerforceTalk 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Edit StrikerforceTalk 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Exactly. This whole discussion is completely off the rails. Based on policy this article shouldn't be here. Signing a letter doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia, coverage in notable secondary sources does that. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not found any references that point to studies conducted by him or researchers under his direction that support the claims to notability espoused by previous commentators. Nearly all references that I have found are pieces that merely quote him talking about other studies. To me, that doesn't meet "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail" (GNG). I respect the subject's right to have an opinion, as a medical professional, but I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce, what's different from all those other GPs is that Kendrick espouses a view that is completely contrary to mainstream medicine, and our article as it stands does a poor job of exposing that. I haven't decided yet whether we need to fix the article to provide better coverage, or to delete it entirely. I'm having trouble finding enough sources about the subject directly -- mostly just passing mentions and self-published sources, but regardless of how the AfD turns out, this article cannot stay in its current state. Bradv🍁 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce "I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me" is a deeply perplexing statement. How many of said 80 GPs have written 1 book, never mind 3 of them - and well-known and best-selling books at that, not little amateur treatises? Or have run a blog with a high readership, or have been invited to conferences and seminars with other authors and researchers to discuss cholesterol studies and CVD medicine? This demeaning of the man's achievements is patently not true so why say it, other than to make Kendrick seem lesser and thus decrease his notability? If he has no genuine notability then why is it necessary to trivialise what he has done in order to have him deleted? Pirate hamster (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirate hamster: Alright, I'll expand my commentary, against my better judgement since I am not convinced that there are any participants advocating for the article to be kept that were not sent here by Kendrick's blog post.
You said, "How many of said 80 GPs have written 1 book, never mind 3 of them - and well-known and best-selling books at that, not little amateur treatises? Or have run a blog with a high readership, or have been invited to conferences and seminars with other authors and researchers to discuss cholesterol studies and CVD medicine?"
My response is this - I do not have an answer for that, nor is it really that relevant to the overall question, in my opinion. I used a general phrase to state that I don't believe Kendrick is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article... just as I would say that - more than likely - none of the 80 GPs at the hospital down the street from me would be notable for their own Wikipedia article. You've mentioned Kendrick's books; I would ask you what content in those books is actually related to research conducted by Kendrick himself? You or I could read the results of research done by other individuals and compile them into a book, if we wanted to. Would that be enough to satisfy GNG for us? (No.) So, for me, the simple fact that Kendrick has written "1 book, never mind 3 of them..." is not enough to pass GNG. As to his "blog with high readership", his Alexa statistics aren't really that impressive for a website that you seem to want to use as a basis for passing GNG. Nearly 56% of his website's readership originates in one country (Australia), ranking the site in the 24K range for popularity there. If Kendrick were notable enough to pass GNG, it could be reasonably assumed that his website traffic would be a bit more diverse than it actually is.
However, I will play devil's advocate against my own rationale regarding his website and say that my analysis borders on OR (although, in the interest of full disclosure, website traffic analysis is part of what I do for a living, so I've got a bit of background there). The more important matter for this discussion is, as I've now pointed out multiple times, that he matter at hand is not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, he's not notable. Simply being quoted a bunch of times talking about other people's research doesn't make him notable. Thus, the article fails GNG, which calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". Therefore, if we are properly applying Wikipedia's longstanding policies, this article should be deleted, barring someone - and the onus is on editors like yourself that are wanting to see the article kept - bringing it up to par with proper referencing. StrikerforceTalk 21:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strikerforce I've just posted a comprehensive final comment on "notability", since the conversation now seems to be going round in circles, but I'll just answer a couple of your points here since I haven't covered them below. Firstly, you question what content in Kendrick's books is related to his own research, I would say all of it. It's all he does, basically. Because you can't nip down the road to the local lab and run off a quick human study (there's funding issues, permissions, ethics problems in human testing), he spends all his time (and from what I can see I mean ALL of it) studying studies. I don't know why you find this an invalid form of research since actual research studies by various institutions, as published on PubMed and the like, do this all the time. You will find any number of studies that simply collate data and study it, or that extrapolate other researchers' work, sometimes decades of it, and see what hangs together. It's an overview of current research and it absolutely has scientific validity. In fact, without it I doubt anything very much would be achieved by way of progress since individual studies seldom turn up anything that dramatic or greatly changed from previous studies. Often it's in looking at the overarching research that answers are revealed. Writers such as Robert Lustig and Gary Taubes have done this and it's a perfectly legitimate area of research and publication. Lastly, "Simply being quoted a bunch of times talking about other people's research doesn't make him notable" I would say that it definitely does IF, and it's an important if, he comes to new conclusions, especially new conclusions that challenge accepted thinking. You might say a lot of things about Kendrick's observations and opinions, but you cannot possibly accuse him of not coming to new conclusions. By your criteria no analytics would have any value and could not turn up notable conclusions. There are whole industries based on analytics and without things like behavioural research studies - basically huge compilations of filled-in questionnaires - we would know precious little about human psychology. Anyway, as I've said in my final comment, I have no objection to all the 'flaws & failings' of Kendrick's POV being discussed in his entry, and I would absolutely like to see it expanded to include all his work, but what I don't want is it simply to be disappeared in the night because one editor on a mission to clean out what he sees as pseudoscience has decided, books unread, that their author needs purging from view.Pirate hamster (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of what I can find is promotional. I do not seem the requisite independent coverage. Natureium (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Bradv🍁 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On reliable sources,, pubmed lists Malcolm Kendrick's 11 papers (co-author and sole author) in well known peer-reviewed journals, and his 3 books (plus contributions to two other books) are on sale on the major bookseller's websites. These things are very easily checked, and clearly show his research credentials. I cannot reconcile the last few 'delete' statements with the clear information at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=malcolm+kendrick. Please explain. He is clearly nothing like the "eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBryantMScPhD (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— AndyBryantMScPhD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. StrikerforceTalk 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are papers written by him and published elsewhere. GNG calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". The topic is not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Thus, the article fails GNG and makes him no "different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me". StrikerforceTalk 17:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Academics can sometimes be notable based on their academic output, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but I'm afraid Kendrick isn't. The eleven entries in PubMed are not eleven peer-reviewed papers (as you say, these things are easily checked, and I'm sure I was not the only person who did check before posting an opinion in this discussion) and those that are have not been highly cited, which is the relevant criterion. (The bar for academic notability is set quite a bit higher than that. Remember that "notability" means something very specific in the context of Wikipedia.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are discussing Kendrick's notability as far as well-established standards of Wikipedia. NOT his medical positions. And it is a very clear delete based on his lack of notability. Sgerbic (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man is an author of a popular book and blogger. The sheer volume of comments on this page speak to his "notability" -- if he truly wasn't, nobody would be posting here. I have little doubt that arguments in favor of deleting this page are motivated by personal disagreement with his philosophies. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin expunging individuals off the record of history for sake of personal disagreement. Nickandre (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Nickandre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. StrikerforceTalk 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, assume good faith. I am one of those that have called for deletion and I assure you that I have no disagreement with Kendrick's positions. Frankly, I just don't care. I trust my medical care team and will defer to their judgement, should the need arise. The matter at hand is, as I've pointed out above, not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Thus, the article fails GNG, which calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". StrikerforceTalk 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As my final contribution to the discussion, I’d like to point out that there are many comments on here calling for Kendrick’s deletion that are allegedly based on his lack of notability because he is not discussed by established mainstream medical sources, but there is a basic problem with this premise. It is the equivalent of saying the original civil rights movement in the US has no notability because it wasn’t embraced by the newspapers or government of the day, or that the anti-apartheid movement had no notability because it wasn’t recognised by the South African government. The first rule for institutions dealing with any kind of contentious or controversial subject is that it should not be given ‘the oxygen of publicity’. In fact, many of the comments on here are quite openly advocating deletion of Kendrick’s entry purely on the grounds of his opinions, including, ironically, the original recommendation for deletion by Skeptic from Britain; they make no real mention of his notability. If an institution does not approve of an upstart, renegade, or even a simple doubter, what does it do? It closes ranks and ignores the outsider. It’s not conspiracy theory to suggest that Kendrick is not validated by scientific and medical institutions simply because they don’t want to validate him. It’s just a basic fact of how institutions work. Why would they validate him, when he spends all his time questioning their position and poking holes in their current research/ideology? Given, therefore, that this cannot be a level playing field by its very nature, then notability must, surely, be established by other parameters – such as is he well-read? Has he had his books reviewed in national newspapers? Are his opinions sought by other researchers who do not agree with the current ideology? Are his books commonly and readily available, published by mainstream publishing houses, well-known, well-reviewed on Amazon? What are his current Amazon rankings? Do any other authors/writers/bloggers discuss his books or ideas? In other words, is he a notable public figure? Have people heard of him? Is he read and discussed in places where being a ‘conscientious objector’ is acceptable? - basic indicators that he is not some amateur crank in his basement talking to four people on the dark web. He meets all these standards for notability and, given that he is the aforementioned ‘conscientious objector’, then these are the only ways to establish his notability. You cannot judge someone who purposefully sets himself outside the mainstream as lacking in notability because he is outside the mainstream. He is beaten before he starts by that criteria. I don’t want to cite all the hackneyed Galileos of history, but it is nevertheless true that people who question the ‘ideas du jour’ in any field are never welcome inside the cosy circle of respectability, so notability cannot possibly be established within those parameters. Given this, I feel his entry should stay and be edited to include all his work to give a fuller picture of the man. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be edited to fully elucidate the contentious nature of his opinions so that readers are fully aware of just how much of his thought is outside the mainstream. That way a complete picture can be given, and populist notability, plus any shortcomings of notability within current medical orthodoxy, can be established in full view of the reading public. Pirate hamster (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster - I understand your frustration. There have been some posts here that are clearly voting because they do not like Kendrick's work. The final decision will be if there currently exists notable secondary sources that will prove that Kendrick can have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia has rules about notability and we can't bend the rules for one person and not the other. This person must stand out from his peers in some way that makes him different. Just like with any awesome band, author or porn star, they have to be different in such a way as their peers write about them, single them out as being on the cutting edge or crazy as a loon or influentially showing us the way or something. There are thousands of fringe people here on Wikipedia, I'm sure a lot of them you would roll your eyes at for their relative unimportance in the way of the world. Why are people fascinated with Paris Hilton and the Kardasians, they are just people known for being known. How did that happen, I don't know, but it did. The media started writing about them and then they are notable. There are thousands of beautiful, rich and live drama full lifes out there in the world and we will never know them, alas. No one is saying Kendrick can't have a page someday, just today there are not enough quality citations to prove he fits the rules for notability on Wikipedia. Sgerbic (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate your argument, Sgerbic, and understand what you are saying about not having one rule for one entry and a different rule for another, but nevertheless, unlike for porn stars, singers and the famous-for-being-famous, this isn't a size of fame issue or a quality of work issue but a 'how do you establish notability when those that will give him notability refuse to acknowledge him?' issue. You conclude by saying "there are not enough quality citations to prove he fits the rules for notability", which is exactly the point I am making. You cannot get those until the mainstream accepts him, but if, by the very nature of his work, he sets out to challenge the mainstream then how can his notability be established? What you are really saying is Kendrick can't have an entry until he becomes 'mainstream'. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, this plays directly into the hands of people like Skeptic From Britain, who makes no attempt to disguise that he's a man on a mission cleaning up diet & nutrition advocates that don't agree with him. It's all very well claiming some kind of superior ethos for Wikipedia here but we can all see quite plainly that what drove this deletion was nothing to do with notability and everything to do with 'Get off my forum with your bolshie ideas'. That's not good encyclopaedia policy, that's just old-fashioned censorship. And a crudely corrupt version of it at that.Pirate hamster (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the equivalent of saying the original civil rights movement in the US has no notability because it wasn’t embraced by the newspapers or government of the day, or that the anti-apartheid movement had no notability because it wasn’t recognised by the South African government. This is a meritless argument, because the question isn't whether or not mainstream science embraces his beliefs, but whether they have been discussed in secondary sources. If you believe that newspapers didn't heavily report on the civil rights movement in the United States, or that there wasn't heavy discussion of apartheid throughout secondary sources, globally, in South Africa, then you are profoundly incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Grandpallama "Meritless"? Really? And what would those "secondary sources" be, exactly? In order to be taken seriously? Because it's been made plain here, repeatedly and at great length, that the only secondary sources that would have validity are those of established medical and scientific circles, so how is the argument that those validations will never be forthcoming while Kendrick is challenging those very circles "meritless"? And I didn't say that newspapers didn't report on the (original) civil rights movement in the US, I said they didn't validate it. With the exception of a few liberal voices, the general consensus in the US was that civil rights protestors were terrorists and thugs, or vandals and looters, or unamerican, or, or, or. Nor did I say people didn't talk about apartheid "globally" - there was lots of talk about it "globally", what there wasn't was recognition by the South African government. When did they end apartheid? Yes, exactly. If Wikipedia editors insist on mainstream medicine discussing Kendrick's theories as being the only proof of their validity they are showing no understanding of the historical entries on their own site. As I said before, freezing a dissenter out by refusing them the oxygen of publicity is a standard institutional M.O. After all, isn't that what Skeptic From Britain is trying to do right here - removing Kendrick and hiding him in the invisible "fringe" where he belongs? Pirate hamster (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP sides with the mainstream, it's by intent and by design, see for example here and here. It's part of our structure, what we are for. But the internet is vast, so there are plenty of other places to write. What can make an article accepted here, is sources (WP:RS) as described at for example WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, meritless. Really. Kendrick doesn't need to be validated by anyone--just talked about by those circles, even if only in that they're rejecting him. And he's not, which means he's not even notable enough to warrant mention. Hence your comparison to events which were discussed in all sorts of secondary sources was, and is, meritless. Grandpallama (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete non notable person campaigning to keep his article. Delete and SALT Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And presumably Dr. K won't object because he says salt is good for you. (Reading the linked material, I'm moved to ask how it can be possible for someone to become a medical doctor in the UK without even understanding the difference between elemental sodium and ionic sodium.) EEng 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the same way they do in Merkia Eeng, by going to uni. Of course, we don't have a back door into real medicine via Osteopathy. Why anybody would actually see a DO I have no idea. You are correct though, there are some dodgy docs around the UK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Merika? Jeesh, get it together will you? EEng 05:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, general or specific. Policies and guidelines concerning BLP's are clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". This would not be dependent on individual editor likes, dislikes or "crusades" but sourcing. "Crusades" aside, the opening statement does include "Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources..." and that has become apparent. If or when there is enough sourcing I would agree that having "fringe" topics is not bad but that would also include bio-content to make the article more than just a Pseudo-biography. Otr500 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We surely need to distinguish between "is he notable as a person?" and "are all of his statements correct?". There is loose "global community", concerned with reversing the epidemics of ill-health that are statistically well-established, for whom Dr Kendrick is well-known by his books and other writing and presentations. (Disclaimer: I am a lay-person in that "community", and I have attended one of his presentations, seen many more in various on-line forums, and read papers he has authored or co-authored in academic publications. Google Scholar will reveal a few of them). Another person in that "community" is Dr Aseem Malhotra who has a page here, and who co-authored with Dr Kendrick a paper that was published in the BMJ. Dr Kendrick publishes both primary sources and secondary sources. The question of whether his statements are correct is separate. Someone can be notable yet sometimes be incorrect. He has been exploring the causes of CVD for a very long time, using vast numbers of citations, yet he has not claimed to have solved the question. He is certainly not a quack trying to make fast money from that topic! One fact that should be obvious is that the hypotheses and guidelines that he is challenging have failed to result in global health even after decades. Therefore, challenges to the status-quo, and debate, are necessary, however unpopular they are to people in favour of the scientific status-quo. Dr Kendrick is a notable person. Barry Pearson 13:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The entry marked for deletion is a factual, accurate and short entry on a qualified medical doctor, still registered and practising in the British health service who has published (and been involved in publishing) several peer reviewed papers and a best-selling book "The Great Cholesterol Con". The request for deletion was not supported by any facts or reasons to doubt its veracity, accuracy or value. I argue for keeping it on the basis that it is factual, only describes the person and their activity and like other well-published authors gives a little background. Moreover, he is NOT a fringe doctor but one of a significant, growing movement that questions the mass and increasingly widespread prescription and usage of statins in healthy - as well as unhealthy - patients. Billions are spent each year on prescription of statins to the well who have never had a cardiovascular event on the weakest of evidence for any benefit and no proven mechanism or mode of action on CVD. Scientific hypotheses and medical treatment should always be subject to challenge and discussion - especially when vested interests promote the "mainstream" view to protect their products and markets which generate billions in sales and profits. Individual scientists, patients, pressure groups and others must be free to express logical, factual, rationally based doubts and questions. Dr Kendrick (other THINCS members, Dr Aseem Malhotra and others through peer-reviewed papers including some in the British Medical Journal) have analysed and reviewed the original trials, results and data (rather than the simple summaries that are often biased) and found them lacking in proof of efficacy and value. Without such challenges, the general public is at risk of repeats of such scandals as Thalidomide, Primodos and NHS Trust cover ups. Wikipedia should not delete this simple, factual biographical entry because of a request from someone who's very nickname and profile suggests a clear prejudice against those questioning the accepted wisdom - even though that wisdom is widely under attack and doubt, costs health services billions and shows little improvement in overall mortality and misleads the public and medical professionals. More below for those interested in some background on statins and cholesterol. FACT: Contrary to what the OP states, the lipid hypothesis (increased fat intake = raised "cholesterol" = increased heart disease rates) has NEVER been proven and is based on fraudulent science. FACT: Ancel Keys (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys) an American physiologist cherry picked blood serum cholesterol levels for six and then seven countries against their incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) - but he had data on twenty or twenty one countries and ignored those which did not fit his personal belief that high blood cholesterol was a causative factor in CVD. Since then this belief has been widely adopted, rarely challenged and led to multi-billions in profits a year for the makers of "cholesterol" reducing drugs such as statins. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study. Statins - more correctly called HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin) - interfere with an important biological pathway (the mevalonate pathway) and aim to reduce the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood. Yet cholesterol is a vital molecule for life and key to building new cells as it is a critical part of the membranes of cells - and is involved in proper functioning of cellular membranes including transport and communication across the membrane and hence between cells. Despite aimed at lowering total cholesterol originally, some now target the s-called "bad" cholesterol, but despite their effectiveness at doing so, overall mortality is NOTimproved - as several studies have shown. Any effect on total incidence of CVD is very weak and a growing number of doctors and researchers, despite overwhelming financially-induced resistance (through "grants" to researchers, doctors, charities and suppression of data - e.g., at the Oxford " Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration" where hundreds of millions of pounds were covertly provided to the collaboration by pharma companies!). Increasing evidence shows a substantial minority of patients suffer diverse, disparate range of often subtle but real side-effects which emerge slowly - far too late to be reported in clinical trials and therefore identified poorly through the post-market reporting mechanisms. Side-effects of statins include weakness, muscle aches, muscle degradation (rhabdomyolysis), neurological effects (including global and transient amnesia)which is hardly surprising given the impaired cholesterol synthesis. Overall the positive effects of statins may not be due to cholesterol lowering at all, but due to a side-effect that reduces inflammation or increased NO production.
For those who doubt it, my real identity is easily verifiable from my Wiki profile and is current and has been static for decades. I made contributions to this entry in 2009 after reading the Great Cholesterol Con and conducting extensive research including writing to and challenging members of THINCS and other groups. I have no affiliation with Dr Kendrick, THINCS or other interested parties including heart disease charities, researchers and pharmaceutical companies other than correspondence.Boddisatva 14:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPainter (talk • contribs) — RPainter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I’m afraid putting "FACT" in front of a lie doesn’t make it the truth. Low carbers get this wrong all the time. Ancel Keys published a paper in 1953 entitled “Atherosclerosis: a problem in newer public health”, which plotted the fat (total fat, not saturated fat and not blood serum cholesterol levels) consumption of six countries against rates of heart disease.
"...but he had data on twenty or twenty one countries..."
Although you don’t say so directly here, this is talking about the paper Fat in the diet and mortality from heart disease; a methodologic note, by Yerushalmy and Hilleboe, published in 1957. This paper plots 22 countries data and shows a diminished correlation with total fat and heart disease. Low carbers like to cite this paper as evidence that Ancel Keys cherry picked his data. But Keys stated the reasons for his data choices: countries had to have used similar data collection methods and have comparable mortality data collection methods. The data needed to be reliable and comparable. There’s no point comparing data of varying quality or you’ll just get a load of noise. Many countries that Yerushalmy and Hilleboe used had diets that were greatly affected by the war. They also included countries like Mexico, which hadn’t even established a formal death certificate system.
Although low carbers love to laud Yerushalmy and Hilleboe as heroes to their cause, they always fail to mention what else they found in their data. Carbohydrate, sugar, plant fats and plant proteins all had negative associations with heart disease. What factor showed the strongest correlation? Animal protein. Hmm, I wonder why they never mention this?
In order to discover what factors of the diet really do contribute to heart disease, Ancel Keys went on to perform a huge, landmark cross-cultural prospective cohort study named The Seven Countries Study. This study was the first of its kind and followed sixteen cohorts spread over seven countries, USA, Finland, The Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Japan. It wasn’t just carried out by Keys, there were 17 other principal investigators. The study started in 1958 (which is probably why the authors here used that year), but it didn’t publish its first results until 1970. The participants were followed for 50 years! It’s still generating studies from the data now.
The Seven Countries Study was designed to look at cross-cultural comparisons so that strong contrasts could be seen and generate meaningful data. The whole point of the study was try an understand what components of the diet related to heart disease. It’s ridiculous to state that these seven countries were cherry picked, as it was unknown at the time what was the most likely cause of heart disease. That was the point of the study! Why bother with it if you already know the answer. So what did the study find? That saturated fat (not total fat, like in the six country paper) correlated best in all cohorts (sugar did not correlate, unlike what other lying low carbers tell you). Remember: this wasn’t just analysing junk data, it was following people for decades while examining what they ate. And if these countries were chosen specifically because their population’s saturated fat correlated best with heart disease, then how did they know to choose these countries? The study hadn’t been carried out yet so how could they have known?
"Since then this belief has been widely adopted, rarely challenged and led to multi-billions in profits a year for the makers of "cholesterol" reducing drugs such as statins."
This statement is ridiculous, as it ignores how science works. It’s impossible for one person to trick the whole of scientific community for decades. Scientists pick up on others work and try to repeat it. If their work is unrepeatable, their hypothesis is probably wrong and forgotten about (you know, like John Yudkin's unrepeatable work). Keys' work was repeated and validated by many other scientists across the world. Saying he hoodwinked the entire world is just crazy talk. As to your Statin conspiracy, statins didn’t become available until 1984. Keys work was mostly about diet, not drugs. Again, you’re talking nonsense.
You’ve obviously learned all this nonsense from the likes of Kendrick, another reason why his page should be deleted. Swampf0etus (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am writing to protest at this blatant attempt at censorship. I am a 69 year old English woman, who read 'The Great Cholesterol Con' about 2 years ago when deciding whether it was safe to go on a low carbohydrate high fat diet in order to lose weight - (my BMI was well over 50). I have since lost over 4 stone and my general health is much improved as a result. I know I have still a lot of weight to lose. Dr Kendrick is an experienced, working GP. He does not, I believe, carry out any research himself, but studies and reviews other peoples research work in order to develop his own knowledge, to help him treat his patients and to inform the general public. His writing shows him to be a kind, humane man, with a sense of humour which can be irritating at times. His entry in Wikipedia is short and to the point and tells the casual reader who comes across his name elsewhere, who he is and what he does. The reader who wants to find out more can then pursue this should he wish. That is what an encyclopedia does: it should act as a starting point and should be as inclusive as possible. Minority viewpoints should definitely be included. If they are closer to the truth, they may be the majority viewpoints of the future.Shirley49 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he isn't notable as we understand it, and we ought to delete this article because of that. Do you have any policy based reasons to keep the article? Do you have any history on Wikipedia at all, I haven't looked, because your !vote here will be ignored if you have none. It might be worthwhile pointing out to Kendrick that meatpuppetry is specifically accounted for in our procedures, and reliable sources always win out. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reader who wants to find out more can then pursue this should he wish. How is the reader supposed to do that when the article has no secondary sources? --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To reply to those who question my credentials. The only time in the past I have edited a Wikipedia page, was when a link to my own web-site about a totally different subject was constantly deleted by one person for no good reason. I won this dispute and the link was permanently reinstated and still exists. I have protested about the deletion of Dr Kendrick's page for the personal reasons given in my earlier post, because I consider it censorship by someone who considers he has the right to prevent ordinary people reading it. Dr Kendrick's may be a minority viewpoint, but intellectual progress depends on minority views having a platform where their merits or otherwise may be disputed. I do care about Dr Kendrick's work because right or wrong, he thinks about things. He hazards hypotheses and collects evidence from a wide range of sources for and against them. He does not pretend to know it all. About his sources, if one reads his books, one can trace his sources if one wishes too, though these are not formally indexed as is usual in books for the general reader. The notability test seems to me about preserving an academic cartel or paradoxically, about promoting the lowest common denominator of popularity. I think this test should be abolished for biographical entries, provided these are short and factual, with a word limit if necessary. If one comes across an unfamiliar name in one's general reading, (and as an elderly person this is more and more common), it is a boon to be able to simply type the name into Wikipedia and get a reasonably informative answer.Shirley49 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Guess what? Voting twice is really unfair. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About his sources, if one reads his books, one can trace his sources if one wishes too, though these are not formally indexed as is usual in books for the general reader. That has nothing to do with the sourcing required for a Wikipedia article. His books are primary sources. Wikipedia requires secondary sources and is not interested in what a person says about himself - and the sources in his books are not biographical sources about the person anyway (as others have already pointed out, the article is about the person, not his theories). Please take a moment to read the policy on verifiability and on what is required for biographies. The standards regarding sourcing for biographies about living people are stricter than for most other types of articles. --bonadea contributions talk 21:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources, as you describe, should be unnecessary unless the subject (of the biographical page entry)'s existence has been seriously challenged by a reader. My interest is in keeping Wikipedia as a usable reference source for most web users. A subject of a biographical page is notable, by such a definition, each time a visitor to Wikipedia types in the subject's name, which the visitor almost certainly got from somewhere else i.e. from a secondary source. The great benefit of a comprehensive compendium of knowledge of all kinds, from the very trivial to the most profound, is its inclusiveness. A serendipitous wander wherever my interest takes me is another of the great pleasures of the site. These things are what I pay for when I contribute to Wikipedia's various appeals and they will be lost if too many gatekeepers try to keep material off it. Editors should concentrate on keeping pages as accurate as possible, on distinguishing clearly between orthodox and heterodox viewpoints, and on keeping the tone of the page polite, not on deleting serious entries about real people.Shirley49 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We'd all be very happy if you (a) stopped making donations to Wikipedia and (b) instead, actually read why it is we require secondary sources -- see WP:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements -- before commenting further. It's ridiculous how you people jump in with these long posts based on good ol' common-sense ignorance, with not a hint of realization that people who have been doing this a long time might have actual reasons for doing things the way they do them. Sort of like people who don't understand science, come to think of it. EEng 22:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are now talking at cross-purposes. My point is that the way some Wikipedia editors now work is destroying the web-site for the general reader. The rules for posts have become so legalistic that they are almost impenetrable. The basic rule should be simple. If someone posts something which can be factually disputed, the person who wishes to do this should do so and the matter can then be debated online. If an agreed consensus can be reached, that should stand. If not, the view, which is judged to be the mainstream or majority view, should stand, but at the base of the page should be a link to a separate page where the minority view or views can find expression. This is a common procedure elsewhere, like in the civil courts, where dissenting judgements are routine. If this were to occur, Wikipedia could then be freed of the charge of censorship of unpopular views or of ideas which challenge the rich and influential. Secondary sources can look impressive, but how much is: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"? I feel the main problem with science today is, that with a few notable exceptions, the mainstream scientist lacks the ability to interest and educate the lay-person. If Wikipedia has no wish for the small amounts of money I sometimes send it, I can spend it on something else.Shirley49 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've always been talking at cross purposes. You completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works and why it works that way. We have an article on The_International_Network_of_Cholesterol_Skeptics, even though they're an organization of snake-oil salesmen, because they're an organization of snake-oil salesmen who've received substantial coverage. We don't (or, to be clear, in a few days won't) have one on Kendrick, not because he's an individual snake-oil salesman, but because he's an individual snake-oil salesman who's not received substantial coverage. For now he's just another hanger-on to the pseudoscience bandwagon. EEng 02:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Kendrick is becoming increasingly widely known in the UK and the English-speaking world. I now have clear evidence of your motives in shutting down his Wikipedia page. He must now getting more widely known in the USA. The evidence he has collected while researching his books could do real harm to the Pharmaceutical Industry over there as well as over here and you don't like it. Read his blog and you might learn something. Calling him a snake-oil salesman is clearly libel under English law, but I doubt if such a mild-mannered man would ever bother to sue (unless perhaps you're so rich you wouldn't notice.) For myself, I shall just regard it as the sort of malicious insult that Wikipedia is supposed to discourage.Shirley49 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be aware of Wikipedia's policies against legal threats and consider redacting part of your statement. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stated a fact. I was careful not to make any kind of threat.Shirley49 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not libel if he actually is a snake-oil salesman i.e. a promoter of pseudoscience, which he is. As for your idea that I might give a fuck about the (capital P) Pharmaceutical (capital I) Industry, please take your conspiracy-kook thinking to a blog somewhere. I won't be responding anymore because my time budget for enlightening the benighted has been exhausted, but for the entertainment of the rest of us feel free to blather on about the secret forces that control the world. EEng 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A snake oil salesman is someone who hawks phony remedies for money. Have you any proof that Dr Kendrick has ever done such a thing? You should retract all such insulting comments now.Shirley49 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirley49: Wikipedia is not for advertising, advocacy, or promotion. If this article was just about promoting or disparaging his ideas, it would be speedily-deleted, and we would not be having this discussion. Instead, this article is being considered on notability grounds, in that there are simply not enough sources available to write an article about this subject. So far, this discussion has generated about 90,000 characters of text, but yet not one person has found a single reliable source to add to the article. Bradv🍁 04:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts also. 117.20.68.188 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources, as you describe, should be unnecessary Please take a moment to read the information linked in the post you responded to. Such sources are not unnecessary, they are required. If you believe Wikipedia's policies are misguided you can discuss that here and attempt to change them, but a deletion discussion is not the place for that. On this page, we simply have to apply the policies as they are now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search for refs in Newspapers.com, and there was nothing about him; just about his book, so I deduce he is simply not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite what is clearly a vocal base of support, I also could not find any mention beyond blog mentions and some advertising for the book. If Kendrick really is the landmark physician that many are claiming here, he will eventually get traction in secondary reporting and those types of sources will exist. But they don't exist now. Grandpallama (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are five days into this ugly debate and so far, not a single one of the many people who support keeping this article has brought forward any significant coverage of Malcolm Kendrick as a person in reliable, independent published sources. The participation of sockpuppets and meatpuppets in this debate is as glaringly obvious as their failure to put forward arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This person fails both the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for academics. Accordingly, he is not now notable as Wikipedia defines that term. The closing adminstrator will ignore all !votes by sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and their crude efforts here are a complete and total waste of time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 "The participation of sockpuppets and meatpuppets in this debate is as glaringly obvious as their failure to put forward arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines" As glaringly obvious as Skeptic From Britain's reasons for wishing to delete, which were zero to do with notability and as "crude [an] effort" as you could wish for: 'I don't agree with this man's ideas, he's a crank, get rid of him' . The handy "notability" issue became the number one cause only when it became apparent the 'fringe loony' argument wasn't going to wash. And why do you feel the necessity to say that all "sockpuppets and meatpuppets", i.e. users of Wikipedia, as opposed to editors, are going to be ignored? If it's a done deal and the mighty eye of Wikipedia has seen through these users and found them wanting, why do you feel the need to underline that for them? I admit I don't understand quite why user opinions don't count for anything, nor do I understand why users are automatically "sockpuppets and meatpuppets" - a derogatory and dismissive term if ever I heard one. I've suffered from sockpuppet invasions several times in my online life and the one thing that marked them was that they came along merely for entertainment, to make trouble through name-calling, private jokes and juvenile taunts & jibes - none of which I've seen here except, notably, from one or two long-standing editors, who have sworn at other users and made frequent insulting remarks, without even a hint of removal (just as one example: "As for your idea that I might give a fuck about the... Pharmaceutical Industry, please take your conspiracy-kook thinking to a blog somewhere"). All the alleged "sockpuppets" I've seen on here have offered heartfelt arguments, explained their reasons, given well-thought out opinions, links, information; in short, attempted to clarify why they feel Kendrick's entry should stay. Strangely polite and erudite sockpuppets indeed...Pirate hamster (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said The handy "notability" issue became the number one cause only when it became apparent the 'fringe loony' argument wasn't going to wash. I would like to point you to the original nominating statement which says, in part, ...Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas..., which is the very essence of general notability. The issue was the individual's notability all along. StrikerforceTalk 21:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would point out that few, if any, of the editors that you've mentioned that are on the "keep" side of the discussion have put forth reasons that are actually backed by existing Wikipedia policies. Many of them are simply arguing that they personally believe in what the good doctor is saying, so his biographical article here should be kept. That's not how this works. Please stop attacking those of us who are bringing policy reasons to the discussion and try to do the same for your side of the discussion. These discussions are not simple counts of !votes, but rather evaluations of policy backing presented by those !votes. StrikerforceTalk 21:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference and to cut off any accusations of "editing" the nominating statement, here's the diff showing the original statement, which supports my comment above about Kendrick's individual notability being the issue from the start. StrikerforceTalk 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirate hamster: I've suffered from sockpuppet invasions several times in my online life – could you explain this please? Before this AfD, you hadn't edited Wikipedia in 7 years, and sockpuppet is a uniquely Wikipedia term for people who abuse multiple accounts. Bradv🍁 21:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen. Should better sources appear in the future, the article can be recreated. If the subject turns out to be a Semmelweis or a Wegener, we'll note it when it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above and some added quackery. Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is now obvious that the notability issue is a scam used by certain editors to attempt to restrict lay knowledge of unorthodox writers. Knowledge is a human right and each human being has a right to access it as freely as possible. Now higher education has become so expensive in the UK, more and more people are locked out by fear of debt and will rely more and more on the internet for access to any post-school education at all. All Malcolm Kendrick's page does, is allow someone who has heard his name from another source, to look him up and find out a little more about him, and gives the link to his web-site. I first read his name browsing on Amazon, I checked briefly on Wikipedia and then linked to his blog. Some of his writing convinces me, some of it does not. I hope I always read everything critically. But deleting his biographical web-page is tantamount to censorship of the most disreputable kind, worse it may serve to prolong the current epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes which is now a world-wide scourge. For myself, I wish I had read a book like his twenty years ago.Shirley49 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...the notability issue is a scam...? It is a policy that has existed from Wikipedia's first day. Neither you nor anyone else have given evidence that shows Kendrick meeting the general notability guideline. Again, I'll ask for you and those of a like mind on this matter to stop attacking with points easily proven to be inaccurate and provide the required evidence. StrikerforceTalk 22:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is plain that the General Notability Guideline serves as a scam in the hands of certain editors to enable them to delete the biographical pages about the holders of heterodox viewpoints. This is censorship designed to restrict debate on what may be serious subjects deserving public interest. Dr Kendrick's work is ignored by the medical academic mainstream because they do not want to engage with his arguments. Therefore his published work is only rarely reviewed or cited. They just want him to go away. Wikipedia should not be aiding and abetting this by deleting his biographical page. Wikipedia would serve its own interests best by hosting his views, but failing that, it should make his views more widely accessible by keeping his page, with the list of his publications and the link to his blog.Shirley49 (talk) 23:20, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_December_2&oldid=1142616818"