Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 April	8 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt

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

Mildly interesting list, but arbitrary inclusion criteria contrary to WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT, and no evidence that the subject of the list (placenames named after salt) satisfies general notability criteria. No less arbitrary or appropriate for an encyclopedia than a "List of place names derived from "mountain" or "people named Jackson" or "containing 12 letters". There is no real connection between the places listed (presumably some have a history of salt production, or are near saltwater, but so what?), and drawing any similarities between the different uses, in different languages, would likely constitute original research. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is trivia at its worst. I actually created a similar list years ago, but at least I saw to it that it was expunged. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Clarityfiend and Animalparty. This is too indiscriminate and trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list EXISTS?? I don't know if I find it more funny or sad. Anyway-delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm equally disappointed that it's lacked low-hanging fruit like Saltville, Virginia or Salt, Staffordshire for 3 years. If you're gonna go trivial, at least be thorough! --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't really see where this would pass notability guidelines. At best this is pretty much original research and random trivia. It's not exactly the same thing, but it does remind me of this webcomic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:SALT. Hoho. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next, List of towns and cities with names derived from the word new? Sheesh, WP:OR. (also, hat tip to Lugnuts for making the obvious SALT joke). Nate • (chatter) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic isn't entirely arbitrary nor is it entirely non-notable, and it need not be WP:OR. I note that The Oxford Journal of Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation reported (briefly) on the topic, Saltworks (an industry page) discusses it, and the book Salt in Cheshire covers the topic. Perhaps a list isn't the right format for this, but the topic could plausibly be encyclopedic. Pburka (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, those articles discuss notable topics of salt and its cultural and historical significance. It would be perfectly encyclopedic to mention that many places around the world are named after salt, perhaps in History of salt or Salt#Production, or a new section, with a few select examples. I disagree however that an open-ended list of every named place derived from salt is a useful addition to this encyclopedia. Not all facts in existence need listification on Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR This perfectly fits the "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" reasoning to a T. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic topic, pure trivia. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2011

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

Oklahoma Film Critics Circle has been deleted as a non-notable, awards-mill organization. The awards of a non-notable organization are equally non-notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages (some of which have been tagged with notability / unreferenced tags for as long as six years) for the same reason, and as has been done previously with other awards of non-notable organizations.

--Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, Variety covered their awards in 2007, 2008, and 2009. On the other hand, The Dissolve mentioned them as more-or-less insignificant if you read between the lines. There's also the expected coverage in The Oklahoman, which is easy to discount as too local in scope. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I do think that maybe we have too many articles on insignificant film critics and their societies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) edit: added URL to article from The Dissolve, since I apparently forgot it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The rationals (as discussed at the filmproject) for cutting back on these local "Critic associations and awards" are sound. MarnetteD|Talk 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Oklahoma Film Critics Circle isn't notable, then these sub-articles aren't notable either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Lugnuts. Without entering the debate if Oklahoma Film Critics Circle is notable or not (as I haven't researched them), if it was decided they aren't notable for an article, their awards shouldn't be notable as well.--Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find enough reliable sources to say the awards are notable. AlbinoFerret 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other noms LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts....William 11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Elbaz

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

The article gives no indication of the person's notability, no notable achievements listed just a biography of their non-noteworthy career. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article says Meanwhile his own work, which focuses on tension between communities, has been featured in publications such as: Canadian Jewish News, ARTnews, The Jewish Press, San Diego Jewish Times, The Toronto Chronicle, and Time Magazine. Does this mean that individual photographs by him have appeared in these, or does it mean something more. If it means something more, then what does it mean? And where are the sources for these claims? Perhaps the creator, Dionysus the alcoholic (contributions) could explain. -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that pressing 'edit' would take me to the 'Jacob Elbaz' page to edit that so I pressed 'Talk' instead. My comment went as follows:

It is your opinion that Elbaz's career is 'non-noteworthy', not mine. I feel that his work having been published, his biography having been published in various papers, his owning of several galleries, and his founding an artists' residency is noteworthy. I could list the papers individually and it would be just as valid a claim but you would not be able to see them and test the validity if I had not also linked to his website. The question is ' Does this mean that individual photographs by him have appeared in these, or does it mean something more'? It means both. Photographs which he has taken and articles about Elbaz and his work have been featured in several publications, I will gladly clarify this on the page if this is the problem. The sources for these claims are here: http://www.jacobelbaz.com/#!press/clud I would like to say that whilst, yes, this is Elbaz's own website that does not make the articles and photographs fake. I could have listed them individually with no link and this would still be valid according to wikipedia's guidelines, however, I felt it would be better to see the articles about Elbaz and the photographs he has had featured rather than list numerous names of papers without giving the opportunity to access them. Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC

Comment republished Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. For me, one problem is the verb "feature", which can mean anything or almost nothing. I see that the man has a page of cuttings; unfortunately I can't read Hebrew, but I do see some promising material within what is in English. (Incidentally, it's fine to cite sources that are in Hebrew. The fact that I wouldn't be able to read them is by the way.) So for example Elbaz waded through the water, placed a chair in the flooded field and set a frightened, stray cat upon it. He took the picture and it was posted on the front page of "Yediot Aharonot", along with another two of his pictures: source, please. Or again, He sold his first print within an hour of opening his gallery in Soho which would eventually receive such visitors as Ariel Sharon: source, please. Meanwhile his own work, which focuses on tension between communities, has been featured in publications such as: Canadian Jewish News, ARTnews, The Jewish Press, San Diego Jewish Times, The Toronto Chronicle, and Time Magazine: decide whether "been featured" means more than "appeared", and, where it does, specify, with sources. Of course you have a lot of material that needs sourcing; one way to approach this would be to delete all but the most important 20% or so, add specific sources to this rump of an article, and readd the rest of it as you have the time to specify sources for it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please understand that this is not about opinion, rather whether the article demonstrates notability as defined by Wikipedia policy. Aspects that warrant notability for a photographer would typically be awards received, books published by publishers, and exhibitions in galleries not owned by the photographer. I am afraid his biography published in newspapers is not noteworthy enough to be a major supporting aspect of an article. If his work has been published in newspapers then you either need to link to each of those newspaper articles (not just to the newspaper itself), or to an article in a reliable source that talks about his publishing in newspapers being noteworthy. It is not enough to use Elbaz's own claim that he has been published in newspapers. This article does not have any references. It does now demonstrate in what way setting up his own "print making and framing studio, an art gallery, and artists' studios" is notable in this instance - it does not appear on the face of it to be noteworthy. The same with "running an artists' placement to allow the youthful artists of the area a chance to showcase their work", if a reliable source were talking about it then that would demonstrate that this activity was in itself notable. -Lopifalko (talk)

Ok, First Hoary, thank you for getting back to me. So as I understand it, if I cut out the unnecessary details, such as the cat and wading through water, change my language a little, and add specific references to the articles instead of just posting Elbaz's website and asking people to go through it themselves this would be enough?

Secondly, Lopifalko, my apologies - I didn't mean to come off as passive aggressive, as I now realise I sounded, but I was also quoting wikipedia on Speedy deletion where it says, 'In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has to pass the much lower test of asserting importance or significance'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#New_pages_that_may_require_deletion Everything I wrote is mentioned in the newspapers that I link to but they are external links and not references. If I make them specific references through footnotes does that change things? The studio, art gallery, and placement is significant and mentioned in one of the articles which is in Hebrew and the video by Hot which is a news channel owned by one of the two main telecommunications companies in Israel so should be considered a reliable source.

Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article wasn't tagged for speedy deletion. (That's something else.) This, I'm afraid, is horribly drawn out deletion -- or vindication. Yes, really: concentrate on what's most important, and link it to sources, whether in English, Hebrew, or some other language. Temporarily remove what's unsourced and less important: if the article is vindicated, you can later work on "sourcing" and readding this material. NB Wikipedia looks askance at claimed video when these are hosted by Youtube or similar: a video from a news channel should be hosted by that news channel, or by another one. -- Hoary (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it originally was tagged for speedy deletion, then I contested it and the notice changed. As for the video, it is on the news channel's youtube page - does that not suffice? If someone claimed something about Ellen Degeneres and linked to her youtube channel I doubt that would be an issue or that I would need to refer to the exact programme, the only difference here is the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus the alcoholic (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard of Ellen Degeneres but a person isn't a reliable source for statements about themselves other than basic facts, so linking to their YouTube would likely not be a reliable source. Yes you definitely would need to link to the specific video, rather than the channel itself, because a reader needs to be able to refer to the exact place to see what was said so they can confirm the fact. -Lopifalko (talk)
  - I did link to a specific video though. Elbaz wasn't talking about himself on a blog or his own channel, he was being interviewed by a legitimate Israeli news channel about the artists' programme and gallery, and the news channel posted it to their own youtube page. Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to what you said ("If someone claimed something about Ellen Degeneres and linked to her youtube channel I doubt that would be an issue or that I would need to refer to the exact programme,") that indicated using her as a source for info on herself, and linking to a channel and not a specific video. Anyway let us move on and not let this distract us as we are moving in a good direction with this. -Lopifalko (talk)

I have now done a pretty quick edit, If I source this correctly is that the end of the...horribly drawn out deletion/vindication?

Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I've made a quick edit to demonstrate the level of detail that I believe is appropriate. Have a look and do with it as you will, this is just an example. Please use ref syntax to reference each claim with the sources you've indicated, thanks. -Lopifalko (talk)
  - Great, thank you. I'm just playing around now to figure out how to footnote everything. Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources. (willing to reconsider if persuasive sources are found.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll assume the author of the article isn't making things up and if not, then the subject is clearly notable. There may be sources in the Hebrew language. Lack of English-language sources does not warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that this new account is acting in good faith and explain: Dear User:Paperpencils, Wikipedia does not take anyone's "word" for anything. We assume that all editors are acting in good faith, but we only allow verifiable text, i.e., all text bust be sourced to a book, institution, newspaper or other source that other editors can locate and verify. Reliable sources can be in any language, in print or on the web. But you can't write anything, not even: The Empire State Building is very tall, unless you provide a verifiable source that says so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about his time.com article? It's from an old archived paper and I can't see it. And what about everything on here? http://www.jacobelbaz.com/#!press/clud I think the person who creators/contributors of the page should be faulted for failing to list the sources of these photos properly or to do the research in Hebrew. But in no way does it warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This [1] is persuasive. It is a photo from El Baz's website, showing newspaper pages that in iclude several profiles of about him and his work, and at least one news report of a gallery show. I say "at least" because there are numerous article,you have to click on eash to expand an make them legible, and even then not all of the photos reveal the name or date of the newspapers. I am puzzled that they did not come up in quick searches, since they are only a decade or 3 old. (His gallery ownership did show up) The lack of ghits is not solved by using El Baz instead of Elbaz. And certainly the article needs to be re-written WP:NPOV and needs in-line sourcing. Nevertheless, the page [2] User:Paperpencils directs us to is persuasive evidence that El Baz is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to User:Dionysus the alcoholic and User:Paperpencils If you are the same person, just admit it, apologize, beg forgiveness, and sin mo more. Whether you are separate people or the same person, you would be better advised to spend just a little time adding proper citations to newspapers to the page. It's easy to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. I'm not the same person as Paperpencils (not that I don't appreciate the assistance) and I'll thank you not to make that assumption - I have no need to admit/apologise/beg forgiveness for anything when you are the one who has clearly already formed an opinion on my character. I'm quite sure that I was already heading in the right direction as to this article before all this came up, so what would be the use in creating an alternative account? I will certainly admit to not taking the time to reference/source correctly, mostly due to laziness, but I will now add the references correctly and learn how to footnote on wikipedia but it will take a little bit of time which I can't easily spare this weekend. It may be easy for you to do however I'm a little new at this and thus, clearly, not as competent as you are at inserting citations. Am I operating on a timeline? Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, I can see now why you spoke about citing Elbaz's website, rather than to a copy of each of the articles at the website of the particular newspapers. These are pre-web. -Lopifalko (talk)

I've now begun adding footnotes, can anyone tell me if I'm doing this correctly or if not what else is needed? Please note that I have not finished with the citations.Thank you Dionysus the alcoholic (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sean Nolan

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

Film maker that I can't find any notability for. Of course good luck trying to find info as you will find only stuff about the more known director with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:FILMMAKER, lots of unverified/sourced content--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pouya Sarai

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

I know this page was deleted already, anyway unotable person it appears Wgolf (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of artifacts from the Southern Levant in the Royal Ontario Museum

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

Not notable - not a single source on this topic, not even the museum's own website. I couldn't find any precedent pages with this type of topic, and any notable items in here should be well covered at the Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also question the "Iconic Objects" article. Notable objects could have a list in the main article on the museum itself.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too narrowly specific for a list. Also delete Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects (and the associated template), as that's just a regurgitation of an ROM booklet. In fact, I'm going to nominate them myself. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is poorly composed and the references have no relation to any of the specific objects, whatever they might be. This is useless. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Goldstein

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

Non-notable public relations person. He was nominated for a local business award, but didn't win it. His book Start from Success is rated #1,044,834 Paid in Kindle Store and #6,578,206 in Books on Amazon.com. There's an evident WP:COI problem, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hopeless vanity article. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amazon rankings mean absolutely nothing on Wikipedia, partially because at this point bestseller lists mean absolutely nothing for notability (although I am trying somewhat to change that) but mostly because Amazon rankings are so incredibly easy to manipulate. I'm not saying that this guy did that, but there are a LOT of people who have used various tricks (buying up their own copies, giving it out for free, hiring a company to purchase copies, make their categories so specific that there is little competition for bestselling in those categories, etc) to get their Amazon ranking numbers up. Because of that, Amazon ranking numbers will never show any type of notability. It also doesn't help that this is pretty much unverifiable since Amazon doesn't really keep a good record of sales rankings or how they were achieved. I'll look for other sources, but I have to admit that an article relying on Amazon ranking numbers for notability off the bat isn't really a good sign. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a single thing to really show that this person is ultimately notable enough for an article. The books received no coverage in reliable sources and the person himself seems to have similarly flown solidly under the radar. If he'd been on the 40 Under 40 list then that would have helped some (although this distinction is not major enough to keep on that alone), but he was only nominated- and the problem with this is that anyone can submit a nomination. Even if it wasn't that type of nomination, nominations in and of themselves do not give notability- only wins give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pudumadam-sdpi(branch)

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

There are not articles about the Social Democratic Party of India at the state level. There surely doesn't need to be an article about the party's branch at the village level. Article was PRODed with this same rationale, but the author removed the PROD, so we're here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted in WP:NONPROFIT, "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice", but there's no evidence of national notability here. The SDPI are a huge party in India, but it's unlikely that a village branch in a rural district of Tamil Nadu is going to be doing anything nationally notable. No significant coverage online from WP:RS in English. I haven't searched for them in the online Tamil media. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and this branch of Social Democratic Party of India is clearly no notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am an ultra-inclusionist with respect to political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, believing they should be automatically included per IAR without regard to size or ideology as essential fare for any encyclopedia pretending at universality. This, however, seems to be an ordinary local branch of a national organization. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Malmgren

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

Despite several request for the author(s) to provide reliable and robust references, none have been forthcoming. Author(s) have twice removed speedy delete tags and have been involved in "ad hominen" arguments (abuse?) against me. I see no evidence from the refs that this person has done any of the things claimed. All that they seem to establish is that he was awarded a D.Phil and has written books. A similar criticism might be aimed at the article of Pippa Malmgren his alleged daughter. There are many promises of references to come but none materialise. Signally failes to meet requirements of biographies of living persons Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this abuse. Do you mean when I called you out about lying on the articles talk page? The only abuse I've seen is where you accused good faith editors of a "Walter Mitty type hoax". It's also interesting that you only mention the afd on my talk page and not that of the other main contributors to the article. You may not like it, but editors are allowed to remove speedy delete tags per WP:SPEEDY Suppafly (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources in the article and are easily verified using the Find sources links above. Suppafly (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does not appear to be a hoax, but merely a mid-level government trade negotiator[3] ("one of two Deputy Special Representatives for Trade Negotiations" during the Nixon administration), writer,[4] and businessman. The book Agents of Influence paints him as an influence peddler, but I'm not sure how much credence we can give to the author. A Wikilinks document identifies him as "Ambassador Harald Malmgren", but a government document states that "The Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, resident in Geneva, is a Foreign Service Officer with the rank of Ambassador", so that doesn't qualify as notability (not that being a real ambassador does in most cases either). Unless there's some source backing the claim that he was a senior advisor to several U.S. presidents, he doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would like to point out that the Office of the United States Trade Representative is part the Executive Office of The President USTR history, not a mid-level government operation. When researched, it is apparent that Malmgren was heavily involved during the expansion of the STR (the name of the agency changed during this time, so he was U.S. Deputy Special Representative for Trade negotiations, which is the equivalent of what Michael Punke and Robert Holleyman are today, in the Executive office.) Having the sole responsibility of preparing a new trade round during this time [5] does not seem inconsequential, thus I doubt this sort of involvement is mid-level by any means. These top-level positions all grant the official and lifelong title of Ambassador. Viivivaike (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original complaint was that the article was not properly cited or formatted. Comparing the original version with the current one indicates that a lot of progress has been made to improve both. I found a source from Bloomberg citing his work with Presidents Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy.

98.169.64.133 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-Working with all those presidents comes across as a very notable guy right away IMO. Wgolf (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if true, I would agree, but at present we have no evidence that this is so. I can assert truthfully that my advice has changed government policy on some critical environmental issues and I have therefore advised Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. However, I can be quite certain that neither of those two individuals would have any recollection of me, not least because I have never met either of them - but I have been an adviser to them. In the absence of clear evidence, I believe we must be very circumspect about claims such as these . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - First, let's begin with the fact that he's in the Nixon Files, [6], he is a founding member of Diplomats International, which credits the title. In Pieces of History The Life and Career of John. J. Harter, Harter, a former influential diplomat who was involved with the Kennedy round, while talking about the transition from the Johnson period to the Nixon administration, mentions: "As I understand it, Lyndon Johnson, perceiving no clear initiatives on overall trade policy from his principal advisors, asked Bill Roth, who succeeded Herter as head of STR, to prepare a report on the world trading system. Roth apparently wanted to indicate possible future directions to the incoming Nixon administration and he depended heavily on a young man named Harald Malmgren to help him develop that report. Hal had been on of McNamara's "Whiz Kids" at the Pentagon, and he came to STR to work on agricultural trade matters. In 1968 ND 1969 he represented the United States at a series of GATT meetings seeking to project a GATT agenda for the 1970s...During my last two years in Geneva I basically served as Hal's man on the spot. Of course, that put me in a delicate position because Henry and Herb — rather than Hal — were officially the principal U.S. representatives to GATT, and they wrote my efficiency reports, as rating and reviewing officers, even though they really had no basis for observing or evaluating the work I did with Hal."^[1] text found here. Another source states "Harald B. Malmgren (1971), who participated while employed by the U.S. Overseas Development Council and later became a special trade representative under President Nixon."^[2] Also, according to the Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States found here, in Appendix E, "also continuing will be the two Deputy Special Representatives for Trade Negotiations, Harald B. Malmgren and William R. Pearce." He is also published in Foreign Affairs ^[3] as well as other notable journals many times. Here are a few decently reliable sites that offer descriptions and back him as advisor to several U.S. Presidents: Investorside on Malmgren speaking at the Metropolitan Club, Second Line of Defense, Milken Institute, Cordell Hull Institute, Bloomberg, Middleburg Eccentric.

^ Harter, J. J., & Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. (2011). Pieces of history: The life and career of John J. Harter. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corp.
^ Woods, L. T. (1993). Asia-Pacific diplomacy: Nongovernmental organizations and international relations. Vancouver [B.C.: UBC Press.
^ Drouin, M., & Malmgren, H. B. (1981). CANADA, THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD ECONOMY. Foreign Affairs, 60(2), 393-413.

I think many of us forget that a lot of these things happened before the widespread use of the internet in record keeping. Thus we have to pursue research beyond the surface in order to establish credibility. Saying this, I expect those debating this deletion to not make hasty accusations (as by this point it should be apparent that this is definitely not a hoax), but to actually take the time to research the information of concern. By no means is the above argument perfect, but it is substantial enough to prove a point that this is legitimate. Therefore I believe the initial grievances/accusations have been dispelled by credible sources, and this instance of consideration for deletion should be quelled. Viivivaike (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Patrick Evans

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

Deleted by prod in Feb, same article. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Pinging Timtrent. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD rationale remains valid. "This person is not notable, or his notability is not asserted and verified. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. Solve that and the article may remain here. Fail to solve it and it is likely to be deleted" Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the claims in the article, even if taken at face value without sourcing, make him notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided. The point of contention is the number and quality of sources, which is a matter of editorial judgment. Merging to Peripheral neuropathy may be a compromise solution after further discussion, but there's no consensus for it here. Sandstein 19:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambler therapy

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

This is a medical product. no sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is not credible that all 12 referenced cites, and a listed 10 further cites do not satisfy satisfy MEDRS. Compare with Vacuum bell (medicine) which has no FDA, EU or Medicare approval and a lot fewer cites. Article was last up for deletion in 2008 at which time almost no independent studies had been done.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. Please point out which refs you see as meeting MEDRS. Thanks for pointing out the other article; I will look at it. It may need nominating for deletion as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think ithe onus is on you, who appear to claim to be a MEDRS expert, to make the case that all 22 cites fail MEDRS not me to prove otherwise.--Penbat (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at them, and yes all the sources seem to suck. The only one that gave me pause was Sparadeo et al. (which seemed to be given here with an illicit link). I couldn't find much out about this, but it doesn't seem much cited and doesn't appear to be on PUBMED or MEDLINE-indexed, which is a big WP:REDFLAG for an extraordinary healthcare claim, and on that basis alone not usable. I'm astonished you think any of these sources usable: have you read WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Weak keep~~ MERGE (per Zad68). I edited the article to remove the poorly-sourced material (esp. that which failed WP:MEDRS) and find there's not a lot left. For the record, the version before my edits is here. I don't believe there is sufficient high-quality secondary coverage of this topic to establish notability or to allow a neutral, encyclopedic article to be written. (Add: an IP has added PMID 25596818 which does look like a reasonable source; maybe the few relevant sentences it has are enough ... ? ) Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC); amended 08:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC) & 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note, after the nomination, two MEDRS sources were added:

the Hershman source (PMID 24733808) that was added here is MEDRS. a good one. scrambler is mentioned in it, in a "special commentary" section that starts out saying "A number of nonpharmacologic interventions have been investigated for their role in preventing or treating peripheral neuropathy. However, the paucity of RCT evidence prohibited inclusion of those studies in this systematic review." They briefly talk about acu, then briefly talk about scrambler and make it clear that there is insufficient evidence to say much about it, and use some scare quotes when they do.
Rivera (PMID 25596818) was added here. Also a good MEDRS source; also a passing mention and saying only "we don't know yet".

Passing mention is not enough for NOTABILITY in my view.Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources. MEDRS is not a notability guideline. This article could be, and to some degree already has been, rewritten to remove health claims that would fall under MEDRS.Dialectric (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it has a brief mention in two MEDRS sources, and other than that, it is trade rags. How does this meet NOTABILITY, in your eyes? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Peripheral neuropathy#Treatment~~Peripheral neuropathy with redirect, there is not enough WP:MEDRS sourcing (yet) on this to support a whole article, but there's enough for a sentence or two in another article. Zad68 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adjust my !vote to merge to Peripheral neuropathy but not necessarily #Treatment, as the sourcing shows this isn't an established "Treatment" yet but would support Research as suggested. Zad68 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this AfD but I support MERGE but to a research section there, not to the treatment section. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic, which has received recent attention in the last few years. A search of Pubmed reveals a sufficient number of independent peer-reviewed articles to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources are not useful in WP, and per WP:MEDRS will not be used in the article - they are not reliable sources. There are only two secondary sources for the biomedical literature, and both give only passing mention. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I've read WP:MEDRS. I personally think it is pathetic, reflecting a lack of understanding of science, but it is policy. However, my argument was not based on WP:MEDRS, but rather WP:GNG. More generally, all of the articles in the PubMed search are reliable sources from peer reviewed journals, so the article is notable WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the ~10 sources you mention will not be used as sources in the article, as they are all WP:PRIMARY, and every content policy (WP:OR, WP:VERIFY and most importantly WP:NPOV) calls us to use secondary sources, as do both sourcing guidelines, RS and MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely dependent on primary sources not compliant with MEDRS. There is not enough reliably sourced material for merger into any other topic. Banks Irk (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge - I think the issue here is similar (but not the same) as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum bell (medicine) where Jytdog and I have been hashing some of these issues out. The distinction, of course, that that the bell is a product, while this is a methodology. The product can be notable, even as a notable failure or notable pseudo-medicine. A methodology more heavily relies on its medical claims for notability. For medical claims we need WP:MEDRS sources and that guideline specifically prohibits the use of medical research sources, referring to them as "primary sources" (but not in the same sense as WP:PRIMARY) and so preventing them from being considered for the purposes of notability. WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS do not say the same thing about primary sources and I don't think WP:MEDRS should be used as a notability guideline; that was never its purpose. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I think some people are unfamiliar with the structure of scientific research papers. Introductions to these papers always contain "mini-reviews" of the relevant literature. So, one can ignore the specific research performed in a given article and instead use the peer-reviewed review information in the introduction to develop an article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is true that PRIMARY sources do have mini-review sections in their intro and discussion sections. But a) those sections often tell a story that supports whatever hypothesis the experimental work was about - they are not independent; and b) we do sometimes use them, but with care, and only in the absence of secondary sources. In this we have two secondary sources discuss this subject matter and provide the context for it (which is what we rely on independent secondary sources for, per NPOV). Namely, there is no good evidence it works (only one small double-blinded RCT with an N of 14 that showed no effect) and made clear that it is worthy of only passing mention at this time. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, if a scientist reviews the relevant research in the introduction to a research article, that is primary research and POV, but if that same scientist writes an article and it is labeled a review on the same research, then it is a secondary source and not POV? I think a little reflection reveals that this is an inconsistency. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am One of Many, that's not what Jytdog said, from my reading of it. To put it another way: Basically, the "backgrounder" a researcher writes in support of a primary research article is incomplete or slanted to support the research. It's often a bit of salesmanship to justify the funding for the research, that's what makes those backgrounders less than ideal. This is covered at WP:MEDRS, check the part starting "Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources...". The motivation of someone writing one of those backgrounders is completely different from that of someone writing a literature review. Zad68 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your view and Jytdog's view, but that is not what happens in scientific practice. These are peer-reviewed articles and that kind of bias is not tolerated. Review articles are written by the same experts that do the research for exactly the same reasons they write research articles. I understand that this is a view held by some on Wikipedia, but its not based on scientific practice. It is just a point of view. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually part of the consensus-supported Wikipedia guide, and it's supported by a systematic review. If you'd like the guideline change you should propose that at WT:MEDRS. Zad68 15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather (with no medical expertise), Scrambler (Calmare) therapy is delivered with a specific (from the article) "Calmare MC5-A device. It has been FDA-cleared 510(k)-cleared and European CE mark-certified." Perhaps that is an additional consideration, particularly in the merge consideration: this is a therapy and a device, and covering the two would seem easier going forward in a separate article than as a new section in peripheral neuropathy. (Since it has been mentioned here, and possibly directly relevant, I'm also curious as to how use of the vacuum bell, which is defined here as a product, differs from the use of the Calmare MC5-A device, in other words, is scrambler therapy more about the device and how it is used, or about a technique independent of the device?) --Tsavage (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on [7], [8], and [9], which demonstrate sufficient notability. I suggest that editors stop edit-warring and gutting, at least while the article is under AfD, and that they civilly discuss matters on talk. Other eyes to ensure that the parties involved remain civil would be helpful. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, unfortunately these three links don't make a satisfactory argument for keep under WP:GNG. The three links are general keyword searches for "Scrambler therapy" at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Google.
First, this sort of search strategy can (and in this case definitely does) produce a lot of overlap between the result sets, because both Google Scholar and Google web searches will repeat hits from PubMed, making it appear that there might be more sources than there really are. If you review the results of each search carefully you can see this, in particular the Google Scholar result set is pretty much a wholesale duplication of what's in PubMed, and will also repeat mirrors of PubMed at commercial sites like sciencedirect and informahealthcare.
Second, once you have the aggregate result set with the duplicates removed, take care to filter out from the search results those entries that aren't relevant to establishing notability per WP:GNG. In particular, exclude primary sources, press releases, and publications that aren't independent of the subject, such as papers published by the inventor and advertising.
If you do this, you can see there is actually very little sourcing that supports a separate article per WP:GNG, and by this I mean (quoting WP:42) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." Not to say there's nothing in this case, but not enough to support a whole article--that's why I and others are supporting a merge. Zad68 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is demonstrably "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic", so it meets GNG. The 102 results in Google Scholar are not repeat iterations, they are all distinct -- reiterations are listed underneath each article/entry in a link called "All __ versions". Nor is "the Google Scholar result set ... pretty much a wholesale duplication of what's in PubMed", as there are only 11 results in PubMed. Your personal opinion that there is "not enough to support a whole article" is simply that -- a personal opinion. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, sorry but your response is still coming across as a "WP:LOTSOFSOURCES" argument, which is one of the AFD arguments to avoid. If there are specific sources that demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" it'd be great if you'd identify the individual ones that do support. Zad68 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender that is a pretty sharp reply. If you look through the google scholar results, there are lots of duplicates there and non-independent ones. (for example - just one - the 'Pilot evaluation of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy" study is there in two different versions on the 2nd page). there are all kinds of problems with google scholar - it even indexes copies of WP articles on other sides. (see here) Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of duplicates that appear in a search is not relevant to the notability. Anyone can count up the number of non-duplicates. The argument seems to be that peer-reviewed scientific articles on a topic in science cannot establish the topic's notability. Instead, it takes something such as a newspaper article by a non-expert reporter in the New York Times to establish notability? --I am One of Many (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything - independent, reliable sources are what matters. in all WP, primary sources are generally to avoided and in health-related topics, primary sources are really to be avoided. If there were NY Times level sources, there would likely be secondary sources in the biomedical literature too (and probably would have been first) Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Peripheral neuropathy. While there are clinics that claim to practice this therapy, without reliable sources even establishing notability is difficult. Despite searching relatively hard for MEDRS sources, all I've found are a couple articles in sponsored or non-peer reviewed medical literature. Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, I'm not confident that merging this would be an appropriate step, since doing so would imply that this is a bona-fide treatment despite no MEDRS sourcing. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion does not equate to endorsement - we have articles on financial scams, computer viruses, etc. As long as there is independent RS coverage, the question of whether or not the treatment is legitimate is independent of the question of whether it is notable.Dialectric (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Peripheral neuropathy per Mamyles. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to unfixable NPOV problems. This therapy has virtually no coverage in the reality-based medical press, and the claim that the devices are approved is disingenuous, as they are essentially TENS machines - Rife machines, an archetypal quack device, are marketed under precisely the same approval: the approval covers one set of claims and indications, but the practitioners use another entirely. Without substantial independent analytical coverage we cannot know if we are accidentally promoting quackery or, conversely, describing a legitimate therapy in a way that makes it look, albeit only to those familiar with the field, like quackery. So: it appears to be way too soon for this topic. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With 11 studies in PUBMED and some 211 "unsimilar" results in Google, there seems to be sufficient source material for an article covering medical and non-medical aspects. There is direct consideration of the therapy/product in at least one credible review study (even one instance still equals "coverage" not "no coverage"), and it has been around for several years (e.g. studies published from early 2000s to present, Apr 2015). Also, primary sources and even company web sites (as a source about itself) can be used for straightforward and non-controversial (non-medical) information. Wikipedia typically encourages unhurried, collaborative development of articles provided there appears to be sufficient material. Not being able to verifiably prove whether a medical therapy or device is useless or not isn't a reason for deletion, is it? (I notice that the article has been systematically gutted of references, further reading and external links since this AfD nomination, which seems unhelpful.) --Tsavage (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11 WP:PRIMRY sources in journals good enough to be indexed in pubmed; two (really one) secondary sources. raw google search results are a classic move at AfD, and are never relevant. it doesn't reach WP:NOTABLE at this point, TSavage. maybe eventually, when more research is done and gathered in further secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point is simple: enough sources for a basic article (who, what, where, when, why), enough medical sources to establish that it is recognized and not considered an absolute crackpot therapy/device, and there is indication the topic is not dead (years it's been around, a new study published this month). What more are we trying to prove here?! --Tsavage (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at this time, perhaps in the future it will be. Not enough to warrant redirect either. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion tainted by the nominator pinging another editor who prodded the article. If the nom is unclear why this is unacceptable practice that destroys consensus then I suggest they read WP:CANVASS Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (Sworn In EP)

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

Non notable musical recording, prod was removed by a ip. Wgolf (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jeraphine Gryphon, also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Death Card. Wgolf (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sworn In (which, BTW, barely meets WP:BAND); WP is not advertising. Miniapolis 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nothing there to merge besides the release date), as with Start/End, early EPs by marginally notable bands usually aren't notable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG and doesn't warrant a proper merge. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-what about this album-The Lovers/The Devil as that is the only one not deleted or under afd. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was supposedly released three days ago, so I'd say please hold on a little bit before taking it to AfD. I'm seeing some possible sources on Google that could prove notability but it's not looking very good. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is why I'm holding off. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion tainted by the nominator pinging other editors who expressed doubt about the article. If the nom is unclear why this is unacceptable practice that destroys consensus then I suggest they read WP:CANVASS Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Card

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

I put a prod up for this then saw the history so I'm putting this a afd-album with questionable notablity Wgolf (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TheLongTone, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Gronk Oz for this. Wgolf (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Giso6150 (dang how many of us put a notability tag on this article???) Wgolf (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added several reviews under 'external links' that I think push it past the WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG mark. At worst, redirect to artist. Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catharsis (Sworn In EP). Wgolf (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the other articles, but this one? Come on guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcangelLaMarivilla (talk • contribs) Dude keep this article. There are worse articles out there like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cold_Day_in_Hell and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_Recollections_of_a_Necromangler ArcangelLaMarivilla (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a reason to delete those articles as well. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't determine whether this article will stay. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sworn In (which barely meets WP:BAND). Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS; ELs are not reliable sources. Miniapolis 21:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS point two: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." See: http://www.billboard.com/artist/5695005/sworn-in/chart (5 different charts). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrating (bare) notability for the band, the reason for my vote. This article and Catharsis (Sworn In EP) seem to be attempts to generate publicity. If, and when, the band has more charted recordings is the time for individual articles. Miniapolis 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it an attempt to generate publicity? Just by existing? It's not like the band themselves are making these articles. Most album articles get created by fans of the music, is it only wrong when the album is not evidently notable? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to band Sworn In - for precisely the same reasons as Miniapolis gave above.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sworn In —giso6150 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. There's precious little to merge, its a classic nothing but the track listing 'article'. Added sources do not establish notability, merely the fact that there are heavy metal obsessives about. TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Blabbermouth review source is reliable, per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Also, here's a review from New Noise Magazine. Since these are reviews, I'm quite convinced that these pass the "significant coverage" criteria at WP:GNG (as reviews usually would). Kokoro20 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was an even split between redirect and delete. As this would not be a plausible title for a redirect, the article is deleted. Nakon 01:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science kharazmi university

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

No evidence of notability independent of Kharazmi University. I attempted to redirect the title to the main article but was reverted. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following article more recently created by the same editor:

—Largo Plazo (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The article doesn't say anything about the department that goes beyond the internally-oriented details one would find in the university's catalog. It's routine that a university has departments, and notability isn't inherited. There would have to be solid evidence, evidence that one would then expect to find reflected in the article, that a single department is independently notable, for there to be an article on it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university. Nothing to indicate independent notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kharazmi University as no evidence of notability to warrant a separate article and there's nothing worth merging imho. –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly not notable. Decision is then about delete or redirect. Delete seems to be more prudent as there are no links in that merit it being kept as a redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kharazmi University, nothing noteworthy to retain. note: the creator of this article has recently created a near duplicate at Faculty of mathematics of kharazmi university, and reverted my attempt to WP:BOLDly redirect it, and saving us all some trouble. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation Whatever the outcome, I recommend indefinite protection as well, given that there's already been no end of reversions of redirects and removals of AFD templates and the creation of an additional article, by one or more people who are clearly determined to have this article exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even worthy of having a redirect according to the external links of the article. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ordinary university department with no special claim to significance or depth of published coverage leading to a GNG keep. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Singh (born 1954)

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:SCHOLAR. Note this is not the same person as Devendra Singh. Jbh (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be just a resume-type article. If no sources are added to indicate something that meets the criteria, it should be deleted. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing in the article that looks like it could be a claim of significance is the title at NUS, but searching nus.edu.sg reveals he is an adjunct or "coordinator", not any kind of distinguished professor there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Sell

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

Borderline notability; Exactly two sources: one article with non-trivial coverage that includes it as one of two successful small business; the other article gives it a paragragh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Efforts to tone down the obviously promotional original, have exposed the underlying lack of any credible independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the two sources, both discuss the methods by which the founder began his business. There is nothing in either source regarding the notability of the company itself. As written, there is no coverage of the company itself in the sources, no claim to fame of the company. If a notional company called "Acme Toothpaste" used freelance outsourcing to get started, would the company be instantly notable because of its method of beginning operations? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Before I started, there was a third independent source, a profile from Barron's; it's basically a discussion of their pricing and basic software tools, and I removed it because the entire section was a copyvio of the source. However, that plus the CNN Money pages still don't demonstrate that an encyclopedia article is warranted for this company. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:42. Fundamentally you need enough independent reliable sourcing to scrape enough information out of so that you can put together an article that's more than a sentence or two, and we don't have that here. Zad68 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Miniapolis 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be different! Okay seriously, Delete-per what others said. Wgolf (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG not met, and the article was started in bad faith by a single purpose account to spam this company. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In fact the only two exisiting citations are about outsourcing to other companies/persons. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Needs more sources to attest to notability. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ray William Johnson#Equals Three (2008–present). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equals Three (show)

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

Non-notable YouTube channel, supported only by interviews and websites of dubious reliability. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a chance to improve, not a chance to delete. Let's keep it and make it better. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ray William Johnson#Equals Three (2008–present) has slightly better sourcing there. The new host doesn't seems to garner good enough RS attention after [10] so a merge might be in order. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Pinging Primefac to take a look again. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Ray William Johnson#Equals Three (2008–present) as there is nothing in this new article that is not covered it that section and the new host is not notable enough for a new article. TheMesquito^buzz 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge, as per 野狼院ひさし and TheMesquito. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor Backlinks

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

Non-notable. Fails general notability, WP:NCORP Jbh (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fairly obvious misuse of Wikipedia as a marketing medium, non-notable. MER-C 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost speedyable as blatant advertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapa Devi Primary School,Terathum

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

Non-notable primary school which has previously been PRODded and was de-PRODded by article creator. PamD 07:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ishibu per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES : Noyster (talk), 08:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I was the one who put PROD on it. There is nothing here to demonstrate that it qualifies for an article of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that ordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment against redirection: a problem with redirection is that none of the location articles has a section on education, let alone any list of schools etc, and it doesn't seem appropriate to add this totally unsourced content to any of those articles just to justify making the redirect. I suggest actual deletion, with the proviso that there is no objection to creating a redirect to an article (probably Batase, Terhathum, which appears to be the smallest geographical unit it is in, within Ishibu within Terhathum District), once there is some sourced content there to verify the school's existence. None of the three links in the article are coming up with anything for me at present - all seem to be dead links, and I can't find anything else non-Wikipedia-based on Google. PamD 18:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PamD's rationale, with no prejudice against working a mention into an article and creating a redirect if anyone ever figures out exactly where this school is (and can source its existence). Deor (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-identity/role

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

There already exist a page on Gender Role and a page on Gender Identify. This page is superfluous and stubbish, while the other two articles are much more well fleshed out. Finally, the two are separate subjects and a hyphenation of them into a single term does not make sense. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed header. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indecipherable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and lack of sources. ~Mable (chat) 14:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate of Gender role and Gender identity. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC) + 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding where this is actually being used in academic works ([11], [12], [13], [14]) so there is some credence to it being used, so it may be better for this to redirect to one of the two articles if this is not kept. However the question here is where to redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A person may have a gender "identity/role". For example, if I identify as a female and I play a societal role of a female. However, I may be a female and play the societal role of the male. One is what you self-identify as; the other is what society expects you to be. They are very different concepts. If there is a redirect at all I think it should redirect to a disambig page with both gender role and gender identity. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly written (confusingly defines the topic), but gender-identity/role is a concept separate from either gender identity or gender role. It is a minor concept in sociology, but seems notable. Here are some refs:

Eli Coleman (1991). John Money: A Tribute. Psychology Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-56024-190-4.
Colette Chiland (1 January 2003). Transsexualism: Illusion and Reality. SAGE Publications, Limited. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4129-0264-9.
Joseph W. Ciarrocchi (1 January 1993). A Minister's Handbook of Mental Disorders. Paulist Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-8091-3403-8.
John Money (1986). Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition of Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity. Ardent Media. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-8290-1589-8.

I think the above should be proof enough that the concept is engaged with in academic literature to the extent that its notability is clear. @Timothyjosephwood, Maplestrip, and Hisashiyarouin:--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that each source you offer uses the term Gender Identity/Role, they all also go on to offer a separate definition of each. Furthermore, while Money himself offered two separate definitions to begin with, the world has somewhat moved on since then. Gender role has come to mean not just the actions you do to express your gender identity; it is also the expectations that society has of you as a particular gender, which you may or may not fulfill (or a perceived gender you may or may not actually identify as). Gender identity has very much moved on from male/female/androgynous, so much so that they number of "genders" people claim to be is almost comical. (I mean, does anyone really take something like pangender seriously?) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the sources, it seems notable that all of them are somewhat dates - most are over 20 years old, the newest being 12 years old. However, I'm still not sure what the term "gender identity/role" is supposed to mean other than the connection between one's gender identity and the gender role they take up. Is there more to this term? Why would it be notable next to the two articles on identity and role?

And yeah, I identify as bi-gender and really can't wrap my mind around the concept of pangender... ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of 1955 it makes sense to speak of them (two distinct terms) by bunching them together because the radical thing wasn't the terms themselves but the principle that there is something about sex, like sex, but not quite the same as sex...something socially created that wasn't necessarily a 100% "check down pants/up skirt and by Jove there you have it". Now we take the social constructive dialectical interrelational glipity glop as a given, the terms are obviously distinct, however related. Also if you notice, all the sources using them together are referencing Money directly and simply adopting his usage. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am of the mind that the Bigender and Pangender articles should be merged into the Genderqueer article, which already partly covers them. Reasons for the merging are seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As this topic is sufficiently covered in the Gender identity and Gender role articles, this article is a needless WP:Content fork. I saw this recreation two years ago, and noted it to someone via email; the only reason that I didn't revert is because I didn't feel like getting into a debate with Ranze (talk · contribs), the editor who restored the material and who was involved in various circumcision, female genital mutilation and men's rights disputes (note Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation), and other disputes. I see nothing in the article that should be salvaged. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qforma

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

This does not seem to meet the GNG or NCORP. A Google search brings up social media, press releases, and trivial mentions. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As It Is (band)

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Fearless Records. Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fearless Records? As for now the band isn't significant for WP but when the album is out in April this band may. So delete it for now and push it to the authors user page for updates. --Goroth (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternative Press[15], Kerrang[16], and Rocksound[17] have each posted several stories about this band (and AbsolutePunk[18] if it counts). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing from Keep to Comment for now, I'm not sure if this satisfies any of the criteria in WP:BAND, specifically if any of the stories are more than "[w]orks consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In case we go for delete I'd vote for redirecting it to Fearless Records so it'd be easy for anyone to recover after the album comes out and (if) the band receives extra notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, this AfD doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I suggest we go with Keep. Rocksound says here that they've got a "huuuuge review of the album (and check out an equally big illustration of the band) in our new issue." It's a print issue which I've never seen but I assume they're telling the truth and the review is "huuuuge". That plus the other coverage that I linked above, might prove enough notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Emerging Career: YouTuber

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

Speedy deletion nomination was declined by Dweller. Borderline essay. At first glance, it appears that the article has plenty of sources. However, these sources appear to be more about making money on YouTube, as well as information on YouTube itself, as opposed to the "career" of being a "YouTuber". The content in this article could easily be merged to YouTube and/or Internet celebrity, and the article is such a mess (even borderline promotional) that, while AFD isn't cleanup, it's probably going to be easier to start a new article from scratch, should consensus determine that the subject is notable. Pinging Dweller for his thoughts on the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there could be a neutral, sourced article on the subject of people making a living from the site. The topic seems likely to be verifiably notable. The current page is poorly named and the current content isn't great, but those aren't reasons for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this state as WP:NOTESSAY. YouTubers as a concept is easily notable though: there are already lots of articles on individual YouTubers and the List of YouTube personalities, plus multiple books readily waiting in the Google Books line. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much an essay telling people how to make money off of YouTube. While there is some merit in having an article on YouTubers as a topic separate from the parent article of YouTube, this isn't the way to go about doing this. If anyone wants to userfy the content and try to clean it up then I have no problem with that, but this is way too promotional and "how to guide" to really be salvageable. I'd clean it up myself but I already have an article I promised to help clean up so my hands are a little full right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an essay not an article, and the references only support the original research being presented. Blog - Yes, Wikipedia - No Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SimplyTweet. Nakon 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hwee-Boon Yar

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

A computer software developer and founder of a software company. There are no articles about him. There are some have him giving quotes or an interview about software, but nothing about him. Articles was deleted via Prod, but restored via the undeletion processes. Bgwhite (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SimplyTweet. A few blog posts in which he talks about this app are not enough for GNG. There is not much in article to merge, but perhaps a quote could be added. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Based on significant updates, this article now meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 01:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toby and the Secrets of the Tree

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

Was not sure to put a XFD or not-but upon looking it over-even the French wiki has this linked to the first book. No references in it-I think the best be to merge with the first book. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Without references, it is impossible to determine if it meets WP:NBOOK. Liam987 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced and not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WalkingOnTheB (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Toby Alone. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did manage to find some reviews with a little digging, although it definitely took me a while- they were fairly well hidden. This had some trade reviews and a recent discussion at NBOOK ended with the general consensus that trade reviews can be used to show notability. Even Kirkus was considered to be usable as long as it wasn't a Kirkus Indie review, although I personally don't really think it's still all that reliable. (I still added it anyway.) However I also found some newspaper reviews (one of which is so short that I think it's mostly a trivial source) as well as a review from the Horn Book Guide, and all in all I think that there are enough reviews to warrant a keep for the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, thanks to Tokyogirl79 for adding lots of reviews to the article, ive added some more reception info to make it notabler(?:)).Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and move Pecq, Belgium over. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pecq

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

Unnecessary disambig, only 2 entries that don't even have exact matches (possibly speedy as per WP:G6). Once deleted, make Pecq, Belgium the primary article and add hat notes to both articles. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: would be a very useful redirect to either topic; no evidence to support either as primary topic, so this dab page is appropriate. PamD 09:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence is needed: the entries are different! Primary topic for Pecq is Pecq, Belgium, whereas primary topic for Le Pecq is Le Pecq. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - obviously unnecessary dab page, Belgian town should be moved to "Pecq" as you say (should never have been moved away from it, as it was in Nov 2004), not sure why I ever said otherwise. PamD 09:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Pecq, Belgium - where's the ambiguity? I doubt if anyone could mix up the two quite distinct names, but if they did a hat note on Pecq, Belgium should be enough. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move Pecq, Belgium to Pecq, with hatnote to similarly-named Le Pecq. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I actually proposed, but it requires deletion first. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Pecq, Belgium to primary topic with hatnote. PamD 09:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Li

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

No explanation or claim of notability. Sources mention the subject, but aren't about the subject. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she appears to be quite notable. Bfpage |leave a message 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both the general notability criteria and the alternative biography criteria. Being a "senior reporter" for the local California office of a large New York-based newspaper does not automatically confer notability, nor do the stories they cover, especially ones with literally dozens (if not hundreds) working on them like the SARS epidemic. Reporters report and other reporters occasionally quote them. That's their job. The only source in the article which remotely focuses on her work is a column in the Wall Street Journal back in 2001 [19], and even that one appears to be incredibly sparse on biographical detail. Most of it is behind a pay wall, but the only biographical information it appears to provide is that her father was a businessman, she was born in Hong Kong, once worked for an unnamed paper there, and got a Masters degree from the University of Utah. I have copyedited the article to remove grossly exaggerated claims about her prominence which were not confirmed by the citations. A particularly egregious example was the former section entitled Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton claiming that "Li was singled out in 2007 by then presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for an apology..." This was completely misleading. In this minor snafu over press credentials, Clinton apologized to the three newspapers involved and their editors-in-chief and reporters. Li was simply one of the three reporters. If I had access to the full WSJ article, I suspect some of the other claims would also be found to be exaggerated. The remaining articles merely mention her in passing. I'm willing to change my mind, if significant in-depth coverage of her does emerge, but for now one column in the WSJ 14 years ago does not constitute that. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore I did not run into a pay wall for the Wall Street Journal. I can send you the link if you'd like. Much of the notability is based upon this Wall Street Journal article, which I'm guessing that you haven't been able to read yet since you mention the existence of a pay wall. I thought the quotes were quite remarkable and established notability. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 14:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, the WSJ is behind a paywall in Europe (beyond the first paragraph). Given the misuse of the other sources (outlined below) as well as the Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton I outlined above (not referenced to the WSJ article and occurring 6 years later), I would need a specific quote from the WSJ that supports the claim she "was credited for having a major part in freeing the physicist", not simply the quote "'Portia was way out in front,' stated Policy Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action Ted Wan." Way out in front in what way? For example, this article on the subject in The New Republic credits her pieces in the World Journal as playing a part in raising awareness, along with pieces in another Chinese-language American newspaper by other reporters, but also credits many, many other people and organizations and indeed suggests that others played a far more important role in getting him freed. The phrasing in the WP article did not reflect that.

I would also need a quote from the WSJ that explicitly supports the contention that her reporting and her reporting alone prompted FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion. That was the clear implication behind a section titled Prompts FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion.

The cited source "What To Do About Bird Flu" does not remotely support the claim that "She was recognized by the Chinese community as taking the lead in reporting on the SARS (bird flu) crisis.".

Finally this source is simply a notice about a conference in San Francisco at which she was one of the speakers, not "the featured speaker".

What it boils down to is that her entire notability rests on one complimentary column about her work written 14 years ago. In my view that is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. Others, of course, may well disagree, but that's what AfD discussions are for. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a few more references to support the notability of this journalist. In addition, I have found a number of journalistic stubs that also have even more pressing concerns of notability compared to this article. These are:Articles on journalists with possible notability concerns:

and this was just a small sampling. I propose we consider this article to be a stub and trust the good faith of the other Wikipedia editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor above Bfpage believes that the subjects of the article above do not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR, than those articles can be PRODed or taken to AfD. Just being a journalist doesn't make the journalist notable; just cause the journalist writes a lot doesn't make the journalist notable. It would be like saying, because I write X number of articles, or contributes Y% of certain highly read articles than I should be notable. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

If non-primary sources give significant coverage of the subject of this article than the subject meets WP:GNG. Really simple. So far I have seen one article (in the WSJ) that meet WP:SIGCOV. Now if that same WSJ article is republished in other reliable sources, that single piece only counts once, not multiple times. Thus, it is WP:TOOSOON. One article does not make WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Wikipedia articles. 2) If you Google her Chinese name 李秀蘭 and the name of her newspaper 世界日報 you get a lot of hits. Her articles seem to be widely republished by mainstream news for overseas Chinese, e.g. China Daily and Sina.com. (There are a number of Baidu articles about people with that name, but I think they are all not her. Nothing in zh.wikipedia. My Chinese is rather limited.) I think that if there are articles about Li, they will be found in the Chinese language press M.boli (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe that just because a journalist is published doesn't make the journalist notable. What I do believe the case to be here is that this journalist is highly published, may have a daily news column along with organizing anti-discrimination activities within the Chinese-American community and I have run into the language barrier to properly assess those sources. I do the search, find the events and huge volume of her work and then get stuck because either I can't get google translator to work properly/she uses a different Chinese name or I get the surname confused with her first name. Bfpage |leave a message 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand the OTHERSTUFF point, but when I wrote that there are huge numbers of articles on NPR and BBC reporters it wasn't supposed to be an otherstuff argument. I think that media figures are extensively covered by Wikipedia for a good reason: they have audiences. A lot of people encounter them through their reportage, so there is a natural constituency for information about these people. People want to know "who is this person who produces these news articles I disagree/agree with?" "What kind of name is Doualy Xaykaothao and how do I pronounce it?" My argument for notability is that Li appears to be in the same category: a reporter with a large audience. By virtue of producing a lot of articles for for a major newspaper and having them frequently republished, for more than two decades. M.boli (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Taiwan. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject China. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. I've left notes on the talk pages of WikiProjects Taiwan and China [20], [21], to see if anyone there can help us with sourcing from the Chinese-language press. It's quite possible, that more about Li herself, rather than the stories she covers will be found in Chinese newspapers. If so, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. As for the the list of utterly non-notable journalists who have WP articles, that's an argument for deleting those articles, not keeping this one. Similarly, the fact that she reports on notable stories does not in itself make her notable. Notability does not transfer in that way. She is simply doing her job. Literally hundreds of reporters cover the major new stories. As for the "new sources" added, all but one were duplicates of the USA Today article. The remaining one is simply a mention of the paper she works for. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject has written multiple pieces, that doesn't make the subject notable per WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has received multiple mentions, but few if any have the subject as the primary subject of the reliable source. Furthermore, few if any of those reliable sources given what one would consider significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bfpage |leave a message 19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator: Could you list this AfD in the Ethnic groups AfD discussion category? Bfpage |leave a message 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it, Bfpage, but you don't need to be an administrator to do it (I'm not). In future, just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact, click on your chosen category and follow the instructions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journalists can be a bit tricky when you apply the usual notability tests, because they obviously get their names in the papers a whole lot. But looking at the sources on Li that are provided, there isn't much that is substantially about her in a source that is independent of her. Covering notable stories for the press does not make you yourself notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I found sufficient sources to consider her notable, completely ignoring any merit based on her own publications. There's a Wall Street Journal article about her, significant quotes/interviews in Washington Post (via AP), Time, SF Gate, USA Today. Lesser quotes in SF Gate, New Republic, Asian Week. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that as Longevitydude stated below, that is a single WP:EVENT, which appears to have meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Sure it can verify the treatment of ethnic media journalist by Hillary Clinton for that event, but that doesn't mean that the subject of this AfD is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:Lasting, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Longevitydude (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon and RightCowLeftCoast:: Going through just those sources I linked above: WSJ July 31, 2001; Washington Post February 27, 2007; Time February 27, 2007; SF Gate February 27, 2007; USA Today March 17, 2015; SF Gate August 3, 2004; New Republic JULY 2, 2001; Asian Week MARCH 23, 2007. Publications from four different years over a 14-year period in multiple contexts. I'm afraid I don't understand any of these temporal delete arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ source is a single significant coverage reliable source where the subject was the primary source, that went on for more than two lengthy paragraphs, I acknowledged this before. However, the pieces which linked in Rhododendrites keep opinion are primarily about a single event, an event which received passing coverage in multiple reliable sources, but has not received persistent coverage since then. Therefore, a single event + a significant coverage piece in the WSJ does not make WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO IMHO. Now a second piece the length of the WSJ article, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Ghamari

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Not even a condidate yet. No coverage I could find. Jbh (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seeking party nomination to run in upcoming 42nd Canadian federal election without any other claim for notability supported by reliable sources is insufficient demonstration for Notability for Politicians. If successfully elected in October, then would merit a biography due to being a Member of Parliament. Expect similar articles as election campaigns ramp up. Canuckle (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a candidate for a nomination is not notable enough for an article unless the person is notable to begin with, and there is nothing in article to support this. Even if she wins the nomination, she's still unlikely to pass notability guidelines, so wait until she's actually elected MP before writing the article. The article reads more like a promo than an encyclopedia article to begin with. Cmr08 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Mills

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

Actress who only has 2 roles (and looks like the Italian wiki link is gone) Now apparently she was the main character of one of the shows she was on though (even if it was short lived) She looks like she might be either too soon, not notable for here or maybe a userfy if possible. Wgolf (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging Harry the Dirty Dog who 1st tagged it for notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer If this is deleted, please move Sarah Mills (disambiguation) to Sarah Mills. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Ghits for 'Sarah Mills actress' mainly return things about 'Sarah Miles actress' even. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not enoughthere to support notability. Harry Let us have speaks 12:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn-yeah same here I kept on getting the British actress. Wgolf (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Looks like we are not getting any more contributions to this discussion so we have to go with the discussion we have. It appears from this discussion that the sources adduced are tangential and no evidence offered that they discuss the subject of this article indepth Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inoculator

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. No editing (other than bots) since two days after the article was created five years ago, edits by only one account, no indication of charting, no independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail, a citation to a band web site http://www.smokingpopes.net/ that seems to actually be some sort of shirt and necktie selling site (operated by dogs) with no mention of a band. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable. Your initiating an AfD while also in the midst of arguing an a requested move on the article's talk page does not strike me as very good faith. As to the specifics: A) The article cites two secondary sources giving critical commentary on the EP's songs (albeit within the context of later compilation albums, but that is often the case with early releases, even those by notable artists) as well as a primary source (the artist themselves) discussing the EP's background. That's not much, but the GNG bar is deliberately low. B) Charting is not a criteria of either the GNG or NMUSIC. C) The citation to the band website was perfectly functional when it was added. The site has since gone defunct as the band started a new site (a frequent occurrence for web sources, which is why access dates are used in web citations); here is an archive URL which I have used to fix the citation. D) Editing activity and number of editors are not deletion criteria; this seems to be a personal jab at the obscure nature of the topic rather than a sound argument for deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding item A – There is actually only one cited source other than the band itself: the AllMusic website (with two references to that site). There are several problems with that. The first is that if we look at the two AllMusic references in the article, we see that they both refer to single-paragraph articles that do not mention the topic of the Wikipedia article at all. Another is that AllMusic is generally not a high quality reliable source (see, e.g., comments at Talk:AllMusic). Moreover, that site's mission is not to comment on notable music, but rather to "[compile] discographic information on every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost" (according to the company itself), so if we consider inclusion there to indicate notability, then every record made in the last century would be considered notable.

Regarding item B – asserting that "Charting is not a criteria of either the GNG or NMUSIC" – this is incorrect. Please see item #2 of the listed NMUSIC criteria, which says "2. The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart."

Regarding item C – thank you for digging up an archive of the defunct site, but the fact that the band's site is defunct and that no one seemed to notice that until I came along and nominated the article for deletion is not a good sign. Moreover, now that you dug up the archived site, I see very little there – just the name of the album and a list of songs – no indication of notability.

Regarding item D – I agree that the fact that only one person (you) has ever edited the article and that the article has had no edits for five years is not a deletion criteria, but it is also not a good sign. Topics that are really notable attract interest and improvements.

Regarding the accusation of bad faith – it is not bad faith to have some prompt that causes someone to notice an article, and then for them to read it and decide that it does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC and to nominate it for deletion before moving on and completely forgetting about it.

Regarding whether I've heard of it – I fully agree that "because you haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable" – but I never said I hadn't heard of it and never hinted that this had anything to do with the AfD. That comment is completely off-topic.

—BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A) There are two different citations to two different reviews by different authors, which makes two sources. A source is a cited work, not the publisher of the work. If there were citations to 5 different New York Times articles by 5 different authors, that would be 5 sources, not 1. Your opinions of Allmusic are irrelevant to its reliability as a source: Allmusic is probably the most often-cited source on Wikipedia when it comes to album reviews and artist biographies, and its reliability as a source for these has been upheld numerous times at WP:ALBUMS and WP:MUSICIANS. That its scope is broad has no bearing on its reliability.

B) I suggest you re-read NMUSIC. Charting is not a prerequisite to notability. It say that an album "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", one of which is chart performance. Chart performance is not a requirement to establish notability; there are many FAs and GAs on albums and songs that never charted.

C) Websites go defunct for innumerable reasons. In recent years it has become common for many musical artists to abandon their old websites in favor of free, easier-to-maintain web services such as Facebook and Tumblr. That does not make the information they once had on their website any less reliable. It is also extremely common for no one to notice that a link has gone dead or changed targets for years; it happens on Wikipedia all the time. Thousands of cited sources were lost when websites like Allmusic, Spin, or Rolling Stone changed layouts or servers, for example. This is one of the perils of using web sources, but fortunately there are archive services like the Wayback Machine so some of these can be recovered, but it often takes a long time for someone to notice and point out that the link needs fixing. Thanks for pointing this one out.

D) I humbly suggest that the lack of activity may be because I launched the article at C-class rather than as a stub needing numerous improvements. Editing activity is hardly an indicator of notability.

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A) My comments stand – including the comment about those cited articles not mentioning the topic of the Wikipedia article at all (as well as the other remarks).

B) You didn't use the word "prerequisite" in your original comment. You used the word "criteria". Charting is clearly one of the criteria (which is not met, and neither are any of the others). If you had said "prerequisite", I would not have disagreed with your statement.

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources give critical commentary regarding the songs that are on the EP, though they are not strictly about the EP itself but part of reviews of later compilation albums that include the EP's tracks. Commentary on the songs that comprise a release can be applied to an article about that release. It is by the same token that reviews remarking on the first five tracks on disc 2 of Garage Inc. could be applied to the article on The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited and constitute coverage of the EP's contents. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you acknowledge, the Allmusic sources are not about the EP – i.e., they are not about the topic of this article, and in fact, as noted below by Duffbeerforme, they do not even verify the existence of the EP. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that they don't have to be about the EP specifically, if they give commentary on the EP's contents (songs) then they can be applied to an article about the EP from which the songs originate. There are multiple primary sources verifying the existence of the EP (the band's own website and two of their compilation albums which provide the details in their liner notes), so that point is moot. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it stays then it must get out of the way of a lab inoculator and move to (EP) as Talk:Inoculator discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Albums, songs, and EP's don't have to meet every requirement on the notability list, so long as they meet one. I don't see a reason for this article to be deleted as there are sources from "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable." That includes Allmusic. Charting is therefore not a necessary requirement. For example, Out of Step (album) fails on all points of notability except for #1 (it has never charted, been certified gold, been a major theme song/major part of a movie, received national airplay, been subject of a national broadcast, or received a major award). However, it is certainly notable. For underground music such as punk and metal, mainstream exposure and national charts are not an indicator of notability. In addition, I find the comment that this article "must get out of the way of a lab inoculator and move" (emphasis mine) to be inappropriate, borderline bullying, and an attempt to own an article. Natt the Hatt (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources don't meet any of the criteria. The two AllMusic references don't mention the topic of the article at all, and are trivial in their coverage of what they do cover (each being only a single paragraph about 7 sentences long), and AllMusic tries to cover all music, not just notable music. There is no notability criterion that is close to being met here. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no coverage about this ep in any of the existing independent reliable sources. The allmusic refs do not even verify the existence of the ep, let alone give it any non trivial coverage. Selective quoting of WP:MUSIC above seems disingenuous, leaving of "Has been the subject of". (WP:NALBUM is the more appropriate guideline). Albums, songs, and EP's don't have to meet every requirement on the notability list, but they should meet one. This does not. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found mention of the EP in this book, but can't tell how much coverage there is since the next page is not part of the preview. Evidently would have to get a print copy to find out. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the references quoted that establishes any notability under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM - and that includes quoting from other WP articles! As an aside, Allmusic's aims are different to WP's and a mention in one does not establish a reason to list in the other. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- really doesn't seem to fulfil notability guidelines - perhaps we move any valid content to Smoking Popes? Elephantbronze (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems consistent with other album articles from Smoking Popes: Get Fired Born to Quit Destination Failure The Party's Over Stay Down This Is Only a Test. Seems that it should be renamed though. @Rob talk 15:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They may all have the same lack of notability. Consistency among a small group of articles is no excuse for a lack of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect should be to inoculation) - Just not enough reliable independent secondary sources. If there are reviews of compilation albums which include this, this content could be used at the article about the compilation. No prejudice against userfication if IllaZilla wants to use the material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article in question has been moved. It is now at Inoculator (EP). However, I think that should not affect the discussion of whether or not it should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Steele

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

Basically a not inherited issue for this former child star, all of her appearances were just for one episode. Either delete or redirect to her stepfather Gavin MacLeod which is basically the not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging GorgeCustersSabre who first tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and the fact it fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenFX (API)

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

This article does not establish its notability through providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. (See WP:GNG) Seems to be advertisement for a minor project on SourceForge. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm not finding much in the way of reliable secondary sources on the web. wia (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went looking for sources when this article was posted a month ago, and I didn't find any. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a reasonable number of mentions in reliable third-party sources. (For example, [22] [23]) This is a software standard, developed by a non-profit industry organization, and used in a number of major products. "The Open Effects Association (OFX), a non-profit organization, develops and promotes open standards across the visual effects community. The founding members come from Assimilate, Autodesk, Digieffects, FilmLight, The Foundry, Genarts and RE:Vision FX. These are companies which have helped artists create ground-breaking VFX shots on nearly every blockbuster movie. The Association’s initial focus is to improve the OpenFX image processing plug-in standard. This goal of this standard is to reduce development effort and support needed for plug-ins across different compositing and editing host platforms." [24] Though it's notable, it's not likely to get a *lot* of news coverage. The article stub needs to be improved. Cinteotl (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinteotl. Two of your three links are primary sources. One of them is the official website. Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to the official website is the only primary. But there is also [25] [26] [27] [28]. Overall, I think press coverage is weak. But, because the OpenFX API is just "plumbing," I don't expect a lot of coverage other than product notices saying "it's got OpenFX plug-in support." Cinteotl (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, I think press coverage is weak. And that means notability test has failed. WP:GNG specifically requires the opposite of weak; it says significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you just did above is called Bombardment in Wikipedia. It is the act of inserting several sources that only briefly mention the subject instead of covering it. The book source is good. But the rest are about Sony Vegas Pro, DaVinci Resolve 11.1 and GenArts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources found by Cinteotl, including a book chapter with a lot of detail. Looks like users and developers in this area will need to know what it means, potentially like OpenGL. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the book chapter above, there is a Toolfarm article and a section of a Da Vinci tutorial on lynda.com. The other more brief mentions noted above contribute to notability, especially Digital Producer, a more general publication. A standard adopted by an industry consortium, adopted by major editing programs like DaVinci, and discussed in depth in RS like a book chapter, the Toolfarm article, and a section in a Lynda.com tutorial is sufficient notability for me. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unipalm

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

I couldn't establish that this quite meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability by Bradv 7 years ago; hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The company ~~is now~~ was later known as Computerlinks UK (source: [29]). See source search links below. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: It seems to me that the notability of the first existence of Unipalm relates to Pipex and has sufficiently coverage in that article. As to its second existence, Highbeam turns up various routine distribution announcements, but I can see nothing indicating notability in that period up to its merger into Computerlinks, whose own website now just redirects to Arrow Electronics following an acquisition [30]. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Significant coverage

Unipalm leads the pack through Internet gateway. The Independent.
Stability and Change in High-Tech Enterprises. pp. 142-145.
Network World Nov 1, 1993.
InfoWorld Nov 15, 1993
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Computergram International (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Daily Mail (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)
Internet Business News (subscription required)

Additional information

Also, at one time, Unipalm Pipex was the largest internet service provider in Europe, as per Network World May 27, 1996.
PC Mag Jul 1994 – Article about Unipalm's Mail-It email software

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of that relates to Pipex though, whose notability is in no dispute and which has its own article; I am not seeing that it demonstrates separate notability of Unipalm, as per WP:NOTINHERITED? AllyD (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Pipex was a subsidiary of Unipalm: see this link. As such, it was a part of Unipalm. Also, per the article, the company later changed its trading name to Unipalm-Pipex in July 1995. Also, please re-review the links I have provided; they are not all about the Pipex subsidiary. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep A crucial company for UK internet history, pre-web. It might be appropriate to merge with Pipex, but that's a question of financial history more subtle than I'm familiar with. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per sources provided by North CorporateM (Talk) 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jidenna Mobisson

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC) *Delete-Not sure why the prod got removed for this, but not notable. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history you will see it was removed when the article was recommended for deletion which is just as well since I was going to remove it today anyway.--Ergincompnalin (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well this might of been the best also given the fact if you look at the back long of expired deletions-dang. Wgolf (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless the criteria of WP:BAND was changed, the subject most definitely meets notability guidelines. Has a single on a national music chart which meets WP:CHART (published by Billboard).[31] If I am missing something, please let me know. I'll add the reference to the article for others as well.--Ergincompnalin (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ergincompnalin, and multiple notable sources writting about the new single, including Rolling Stone, Consequence of Sound, Fuse.tv, Pitchfork, Stereogum. — Mayast (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. --CarlosWagners (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this is anywhere near as clear cut as some have suggested. One of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". In the US that would be the Hot 100, which the subject has not appeared on. High placings on specialist charts may indicate notability, but no. 49 on a genre-specific airplay chart is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate notability. So it comes down to coverage, and when you look at the genuinely reliable sources, there isn't much there, mainly brief mentions in articles that focus on Janelle Monáe. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep. Wgolf (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mental contrasting. And merge such content as may be desirable per editorial consensus from the history. Sandstein 19:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOOP (scientific strategy)

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

no evidence for notability of this particular theory. The author already has an article which covers this adequately. The term is essentially unknown (Google finds in this meaning only its own site, Wikipedia, and a PR on LifeHacker), and not even suitable for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOOD. Wish, outcome, obstacle, delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: This is the second time that User:DGG has nominated this article for deletion; his first request was in December 2014 and that request was rapidly declined, as it should again be declined. DGG's reasons for deletion are not accurate; it is not true that Google returns only three results for this topic, as DGG claims. A Google query returns 2,100 results, and a Google Scholar query returns half a dozen relevant results, the first of which has been cited 60 times in the scholarly and scientific literature. WOOP as a method has only existed for at most a couple of years, but it is already a notable psychological method that was developed by reputable researchers. Note that above DGG calls WOOP a "theory" but this not an accurate description; WOOP is a practical method or strategy, not a theory. This request for deletion is misinformed. Biogeographist (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I oppose deletion, I do not oppose renaming the article, as I find the phrase "scientific strategy" to be potentially misleading, as it could be taken to mean "a strategy for doing science" (i.e., a form of scientific method), which it is not. Perhaps "behavioral strategy" would be a better descriptor. Biogeographist (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author has done other work than on this. The higher cited papers at GScholar I think mainly refer to other work. It may be connected work, but its not necessarily on this. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The higher cited papers at Google Scholar concern mental contrasting with implementation intentions—which, as the WOOP (scientific strategy) article states in its second sentence, is another name for WOOP. The reasons that you have given to justify deletion of this article are inaccurate. This topic meets notability guidelines as much as similar methods such as the GROW model. Biogeographist (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes my point: this is his own neologism, that not even he uses consistently in his own papers. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not make your point at all. You are incorrect yet again. First, your male pronouns are incorrect; the primary contributor to WOOP is Gabriele Oettingen, who is a woman, not a man. Second, WOOP is not a neologism as you claim; it is an acronym. Third, there is no inconsistency in usage; WOOP is the popular acronym for the strategy; mental contrasting with implementation intentions is the academic name for the strategy. As above, your reasoning is based on inaccurate premises and deletion of this article is unjustified. Biogeographist (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to mental contrasting (though that article may have problems of its own, too). For the record, DGG did request speedy deletion (WP:A10) that was denied here (links from Biogeographist above do not work as intended). However, a declined speedy deletion is not really an argument for keeping an article - all it says is that there are no problems with the article that are so urgent that they need rapidly to be taken care of. (Well, actually, it means there is no relevant criterion for speedy deletion, but essentially, the criteria are supposed to fit only the urgent stuff.)

Here, all references save for #6 are from the two authors (Oettingen and Gollwitzer), hence WP:PRIMARY. I cannot get through the paywall but the abstract does not look like WOOP, as opposed to mental contrasting, is a significant part of it. Tigraan (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note:A declined speedy just means that one other person disagreed, or even agreed it probably should be deleted but didn't think it obvious, or didn;t think it obviously met the criterion. Many times I've declined speedies, but then nominated them for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirecting to mental contrasting (as User:Tigraan suggests) would be acceptable, since there is already a section in that article on mental contrasting with implementation intentions (and WOOP). A current preponderance of primary sources in the article is not an argument for deletion (instead Template:Primary sources should be used), given that there are (contra User:DGG) plenty of secondary sources that mention the topic (see, e.g., the Template:Find sources links above, or this Google query). Biogeographist (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confused between speedy deletion, which is taken care of by administrators for urgent matters (even if the creator of a page insists his copyright-infringing page should stay, it gets killed), and proposed deletion, which is intended for uncontroversial deletions - which means, stuff that could go to standard AfD but is believed by the nominator not to meet any opposition.

I agree that the absence of correct sources right now does not mean they do not exist. However, after some honest tries to find sources (read: search engine), I could not find anything. I expect the nominator to have done the same. Of course it is to be expected for technical subjects like this one, but at the end of the day the WP:BURDEN to find sources is on those who claim notability is there. Tigraan (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding secondary sources, clicking on "news" in the Template:Find sources links above shows relevant articles in, for example, The New York Times, Fast Company, Medical Daily, New York Magazine, The Irish Times, Entrepreneur, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc. (in addition to the scientific and scholarly literature accessible at Google Scholar). Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link to one of those articles that specifically discusses the acronym WOOP, as opposed to mental contrasting, because I did not find any. A source that merely discusses mental contrasting is not enough (taking it to the extreme, multiple RS articles discuss psychology, it does not make every subbranch of it notable). Saying sources exist is not enough, the burden is on you. Tigraan (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tigraan: I don't see how secondary sources are relevant to the discussion at hand, since we have already agreed that a preponderance of primary sources is not a justification for deleting the article, if I am not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this page is only a discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. In other words, I don't see any burden to cite secondary sources within the context of this discussion about deletion when they are easily accessible from the links available from the Template:Find sources links above. If you could explain your reasoning further so I can understand why you are continuing to press the issue of secondary sources here, I would appreciate it.

Nevertheless, since your request is extremely easy to fulfill, I am providing below full citations and quotations from secondary sources in all of the publications listed two paragraphs above, accessible with a simple click on the "news" link in the Template:Find sources links above as I instructed (and thus I find it strange that you say you "did not find any"). I have removed paragraph breaks. Note that the publications in which these articles appeared are important enough that they have their own Wikipedia pages. There are other relevant sources available from the same "news" link in the Template:Find sources links above; these are only a selection.

List of references collapsed by Tigraan (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman, M.D., Richard A. (22 December 2014). "Science: Dare to dream of falling short". The New York Times: D5. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "It seems like an obvious and deceptively simple concept, yet according to the author, only one in six people spontaneously thinks this way when asked what accomplishment is foremost in his or her mind. Of course, people can spend years in psychotherapy exploring the reasons they have failed to succeed, too often with little to show for their efforts. But insight, as most mental health professionals know, is rarely sufficient to change behavior, and Dr. Oettingen says such therapy is probably unnecessary for many people. Instead, she offers a simpler and faster alternative, an extension of her empirically validated mental contrasting exercise. She calls it WOOP—which stands for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan." According to preliminary data the author presents, mental contrasting can lead to better eating habits, an improved exercise regimen and greater control over alcohol consumption, among other benefits. Dr. Oettingen has even developed a free app for your smartphone, called, appropriately, WOOP."
LaVine, Lindsay (7 October 2014). "Why dreaming about the future makes you less likely to achieve your goals". Fast Company. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "The process can be broken down into four steps, known as "WOOP" (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle and Plan). Here's how it works: 1. Identify a "wish" that's important to you. Ask what it is you really want. It should be something that's challenging for you, but possible to achieve within a certain period of time. For example, becoming more comfortable speaking during business presentations. 2. Think of the best outcome you associate with achieving your goal. In the public speaking example, it could be visualizing yourself getting your message across in an engaging presentation or answering every question without getting flustered. Oettingen suggests letting your mind go and imagining how good it would feel to accomplish your goal. 3. Identify the obstacles in your way. Ask yourself, "What is it in me that stands in the way?" You can only control the way you act, and you can't change your boss or control how those in your company react, Oettingen explains. In the example, it could be that you tend to talk too fast when you're nervous, or you're afraid of forgetting what you want to say. 4. Formulate a "plan" for how you will overcome the obstacle. Think about what action you can take when you encounter the problem, and formulate it in an "if/then" statement. For example, "If I'm nervous, then I'll remind myself of the other successful presentations I've given in the past," or "If I'm afraid of forgetting key points, then I will spend more time preparing my remarks, or have an index card with key words to jog my memory." To start, Oettingen suggests finding some time, whether it's on your commute or at lunch, to focus. In other words, you can't WOOP while responding to emails or helping your kids with their homework."
Castillo, Stephanie (9 December 2014). "WOOP, there it is: psychological process challenges power of positive thinking". Medical Daily. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen has spent years researching the power of positive thinking, deciding it is better replaced with an approach she shortens to WOOP: Wish, outcome, obstacles, and plan. "Think about a wish that is dear to you," Oettingen said. "What is it you really want? This could be a big, New Year's–resolution-type ambition, like running a marathon or losing a certain amount of weight, but it doesn't have to be." Identifying these wishes, she added, helps a person define their goal—and it's also the first step towards realizing those hopes and dreams."
Dahl, Melissa (9 December 2014). "Positive thinking doesn't work; here's what does". New York Magazine. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen explained the plan to Kaufman; it's a delightful little acronym that spells WOOP. Wish: First, define your goal. "Think about a wish that is dear to you," Oettingen said. "What is it you really want? This could be a big, New Year's–resolution-type ambition, like running a marathon or losing a certain amount of weight, but it doesn't have to be. "I do it every morning for the next day," Oettingen said on the podcast. Your wish doesn't have to be huge; it just has to be real, something you truly want. Outcome: Here's where a little bit of positive thinking sneaks back in. Keeping your goal in mind, ask yourself: If this wish of mine is fulfilled, what is the best possible outcome? "Very often, it is a feeling," Oettingen said. "You define that outcome, and you imagine that outcome. And once you've imagined the outcome, really immerse yourself in these daydreams." Obstacles: The previous step tends to be where people naturally stop — daydreaming feels pretty nice, after all — but Oettingen isn't done yet. After you've let yourself fantasize for a little while about what it will feel like when your goal is accomplished, bring your mind back down to reality. "Then you say, What is it in me that holds me back from experiencing that wish, that outcome? " Oettingen said. "Very often it's an emotion, it's those same old habits.... And you imagine that obstacle." Plan: "Once you've imagined that obstacle," Oettingen said, "you'll understand what you need to do to overcome it." Come up with an if/then plan—if this obstacle pops up, then you'll do X to get around it and keep going after your goal. Oettingen's research has shown that this method has helped people eat more fruits and vegetables; it's also helped students achieve better grades in school, and it has even helped people act less insecure in their romantic relationships."
"Woop it up with this sensible wishing plan". The Irish Times. 7 November 2014. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "What does help is mental contrasting, an exercise that brings together our positive fantasy about the future with a visualisation of the obstacles standing in the way. Try a mental contrasting tool called WOOP – Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Here's how it works: 1 Find a quiet place where you won't be disturbed, switch off your devices, and close your eyes. 2 Name a wish that is attainable or realistic for you – say, landing a new client. 3 Then imagine for a few minutes what would happen if that wish came true, letting the images flow freely through your mind. 4 Then change things up. Identify the main obstacle inside you that stands in the way, and imagine it for a few minutes. Now on to your plan: If faced with X obstacle, then you will take Y effective action in response. WOOP is simple, easy, and inexpensive, but why does it work? The process either helps people understand that their wishes are attainable, giving them energy and direction, heightening their engagement and prompting them to act; or it helps them realise their wishes are unrealistic, leading them to disengage and freeing them up to pursue other, more promising goals."
Reuteman, Rob (10 February 2015). "Attitude: The bright side of negative thinking [interview]". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "[Interviewer:] In your book, you take mental contrasting a step further with the introduction of a meditative practice you call WOOP: Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. It is meant to help people reap the full benefits of mental contrasting. [Oettingen:] Yes, WOOP has another step—the forging of explicit intentions about how to achieve a wish. If you break down the process by which people pursue wishes, you can distinguish two phases: an initial phase in which you weigh your options and decide to commit to a goal, and a second phase in which you plan how to take action to attain the wish. There is a large amount of literature that shows this second phase is helpful in attaining goals. It doesn’t work if you don’t have a strong determination to implement your wishes. You must identify likely obstacles to your goal and approve behavior to overcome the obstacle."
Aschwanden, Christie (10 February 2015). "Positive thinking isn't all-powerful: Penalty for failure may help more in reaching goals". The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "In her new book, Rethinking Positive Thinking, Oettingen outlines a mental contrasting strategy called WOOP, for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan." First, you identify your wish or goal, then you take a moment to imagine how great it will feel to attain it, next you think about obstacles you might encounter and finally you build a plan to overcome these barriers. Smartphone users can download a WOOP app to help them save goals and plans and track progress. Some goals fail when they fall prey to a phenomenon that behavioral economists call hyperbolic discounting, in which immediate rewards seem more alluring than further-off ones, even if they're smaller. "The idea is that our decision-making is distorted by the immediate consequences," says Daniel Reeves, a game theorist who, with his wife, Bethany Soule, founded a company called Beeminder to help people overcome this bug in our mental processing system."
Burkeman, Oliver (16 October 2014). "How to be fitter, happier and more successful: stop dreaming and start getting real". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "The technique's full formal name is less than catchy – "mental contrasting with implementation intentions" – so in her book, Oettingen rebrands it as "Woop", for "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan". The acronym sets out the four stages of the process. First, spend a minute or two thinking in detail about something you wish to accomplish; second, vividly imagine the best thing you associate with having achieved that outcome. (That "best thing" might be an emotion, a promotion, praise – anything, really.) Third, ask yourself what internal obstacle's most likely to get in the way. (This isn't about your boss, or your spouse, so much as that weakness inside you that holds you back from better pay or a better relationship.) Finally, formulate an "if-then" plan for what you'll do when that obstacle arises. ("If I find myself feeling terrified when I stand up in front of the audience, then I'll recall how diligently I've rehearsed." "If I find myself checking Twitter, I'll get up from my desk immediately.")"
Kamenetz, Anya (30 December 2014). "Financial New Year's resolutions: 'WOOP' it up". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "Oettingen and her team came up with a method they call "Mental contrasting with implementation intentions." Luckily, they also gave it an acronym: WOOP. That stands for Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan. Here's how it works. Step 1: Wish. State what you want. Make the resolution. "I will stop ordering takeout for lunch during the workweek in 2015." Step 2: Outcome. Now is the time to fantasize in detail. Let your mind traverse all the delightful rewards that you'll enjoy from fulfilling this resolution. "I'll save at least $15 a day. And I'll be healthier because I'll cook and plan my meals ahead. And I'll save time and be more productive." Step 3: Obstacle. This is the crux of the process – the "contrasting" part of mental contrasting. You have to think through the circumstances that might stop you from achieving this goal. "I might not have enough time to pack a lunch. Or I might forget." Step 4: Plan. Make a plan for what to do when the inevitable obstacle arises. "I'll put a note in my planner to remind me to make a lunch. And when I make soup, I'll put single-serving containers away in the freezer so I always have something to grab." The WOOP method has been shown to have a powerful impact far beyond its silly name. Studies have shown that it helps people stick to an eating and exercise plan, and helps people bounce back from chronic illness. Students who practice WOOP do more homework, show up for class more regularly and study more. It can even help improve people's relationships. So why not finances?"
Painter, Kim (25 January 2015). "Positive thinking? It's not enough to reach your goals". USA Today. Retrieved 13 April 2015. "With additional studies, Oettingen came up with a strategy for turning dreams into action or, when appropriate, new dreams. It goes by the acronym WOOP, standing for: Wish: Let yourself dream about a specific wish for your life. Outcome: Think about the best thing that could happen as a result. Obstacles: Think about the thoughts, behaviors, habits and preconceived notions that might hold you back. Plan: Think about when and where an obstacle will occur and make an "if-then" plan: "If obstacle x occurs, then I will perform behavior y." Someone who wants to walk more might end up with a plan like: "If I feel I do not have time to go for a brisk walk, then I will remind myself: I will be more productive after having been outside." A free WOOP app is available through woopmylife.org. The method could make a huge difference for "people who tend to get stuck in the dreaming part" of pursuing their goals, says Julie Norem, a professor of psychology at Wellesley College. Norem's own research focuses on "defensive pessimism" – a strategy used by some people to successfully deal with anxiety."

Biogeographist (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although "preponderance of primary sources" would not be a reason to delete the article, the lack of secondary sources certainly is an issue. The argument is about the notability of WOOP, and this needs secondary sources per very basic policy (WP:N), and those are typically what is expected to be brought up at AfD. (Note that there are different deletion processes, with different procedures for each; here, we are at WP:AFD.)

Thank you for providing the links above (I collapsed them to avoid cluttering the page). Be aware that "find sources" is not a magical tool that creates reliable sources when there are none, and it has no guarantee to find such sources if they exist. Here is what I think of the links you provided:

Analysis of the sources given above

First of all, I would point out that "reliable sources" is not the only requirement. In fact, the requirement at WP:GNG is threefold: the sources must be (1) reliable, (2) independant of the subject (or "secondary"), and (3) provide significant coverage, all of that at the same time. Now for our current case:

[32] is a book review with only a passing mention of WOOP, failing (3).
[33] fastcompany.com looks like a reliable source to me. However, it is very clear that this is an interview in disguise ("Oettingen says" at every sentence), hence not independant of the subject, failing (2).
[34]: medicaldaily.com does not appear reliable to me (1), and the same problem of pseudo-interview applies (2).
[35] is basically a reprinting of the original source (Kaufmann) which may or may not be independant from Oettingen, and I have a hard time believing nymag.com/scienceofus is reliable (right now, that column is running a piece called "32-Year-Old Woman Wakes Up Thinking She’s 15"). Fails (1).
[36] could be fine. However, no writer is indicated (it says "copyright Harvard Business Review" and I cannot access that), and the writing seems fishy (borderline advertising) although it could just be the style of it. If I were convinced the author of that piece has not done yet-another-interview-in-disguise from Oettingen, that would be a good source.
[37] is an interview, hence not independant of the subject (2), and what the author of a theory/method says about how her theory/method is useful can hardly be considered reliable (1).
[38] has only a passing mention of WOOP (3), very similarly to the first reference.
[39] is from the Comment is Free section, which is orders of magnitude less reliable than the Guardian itself. It could be a good source, because the author made some effort besides the quasi-interview (adding examples in the WOOP section), but I do not quite see it as reliable.
[40]: same remarks: quasi-interview, but with some effort; reliability yet to assess (it's the Chicago Tribune, sure, but what is exactly the editorial model for the "business" section?).
[41] is another quasi-interview.

Based on the sources alone, I would be undecided. There seem to be multiple sources that are a bit shaky, in a sea of unusable ones; my personal philosophy in that case is to delete but that is not WP policy. However, my feeling after an hour of digging in the references is that there has been extensive media campaigning from Oettingen and/or her publisher for her later book, and that WP article is possibly part of it. Seeing again and again the same story with the same outline ("positive thinking doesn't work" - expanding the acronym - point to the mobile app) makes it very difficult to me to asssume good faith at that point.

I thereby ask formally Biogeographist to disclose any connection they have with the subject, in accordance with WP:EXTERNALREL, as a preventive measure. Please understand that you are under no obligation to provide identifying information whatsoever; moreover, the only case where direct editing is forbidden is if you are paid for that. This is not to be seen as an attack ad hominem against your arguments, but merely as a preventive measure to be in accordance with policy. Tigraan (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for your thorough analysis, which I find very helpful indeed. I don't really disagree with anything you've said in your analysis of those sources; in fact, I find your analysis eminently reasonable and I admire the seriousness with which you have applied Wikipedia policies. Let me explain what my interest is in this article, as you requested. First, I have no connection whatsoever with this topic, its creator, or with the creator of this Wikipedia article, so I have no conflicts of interest. I only discovered this page a few months ago, and as you can see in my contributions, I have made substantial contributions to articles on unrelated topics. The primary reason I am advocating against simple deletion and in favor of at least merging and redirecting to mental contrasting is because I think WOOP is an interesting acronym for a decision-making strategy that is similar to established articles on other acronyms for decision-making strategies such as GROW, OODA, PDCA, SWOT, VRIO, and yes, even U (well, U is not an acronym; perhaps it is akin to an ideogram). In other words, I think this article adds value to Wikipedia, although I can see why merging and redirecting is a valid editorial decision. Biogeographist (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirecting as suggested would be OK with me also. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note about redirection There is a disambiguation page at Woop. I would be OK with replacing the current entry by "wish, outcome etc., an implementation of mental contrasting" if it correctly describes the thing and no redirection guideline disagrees. Tigraan (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Tigraan that the disambiguation page at Woop needed to be updated, and I just changed it. The previous description there, "a scientific strategy for behavior change", was not optimal given my argument above that the phrase "scientific strategy" is potentially misleading. I also suggest that prior to merge and redirect the parenthetical phrase "scientific strategy" in the article's title should be changed to something else such as "behavioral strategy". Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess that at this point we have consensus to merge to mental contrasting (and changing the redirection from Woop to the correct place). (Please reply if you disagree, obviously)

The question remains of what to merge. I would advocate something rather strict, that goes as follows:

Scrap all the existing content of Mental_contrasting#Mental_Contrasting_with_Implementation_Intentions_.28MCII.29
Add a link to Implementation intention; take the first sentence of the lead from there ("implementation intentions are...").
Add the following:

Oettingen and Gollwitzer suggested the use of implementation intentions for mental contrasting in a four-step strategy "wish, outcome, obstacle, plan" (WOOP). (ref to primary source goes here) The first step ("wish") is to name (etc.) (place here second paragraph of WOOP_(scientific_strategy)#WOOP)

Change the redirect from Woop, and that's it.

On a side note, I will drop a note on WP:PSYCH to ask for evaluation of implementation intention and mental contrasting. The more I read them, the more it looks like a walled garden which none really cared to check (Mental_contrasting#Application looks like a joke, for instance). Tigraan (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mental contrasting needs attention from experts; while I think it is a notable topic, currently it is essentially the work of a single editor with an WP:SPA account, User:AntonGollwitzer, who may be the same Anton Gollwitzer who has coauthored studies with Oettingen, e.g. doi:10.1177/1948550613476307.

Implementation intention, on the other hand, is a much more prominent concept in the psychological literature (as far as I have seen) and that article has already received lots of attention from numerous editors. You can request evaluation of both, but mental contrasting is the article that is more in need of attention.

Mental contrasting#Application may look like a joke to you, as you say, but so does a lot of other psychological research to many people. That is why Page Smith said of modern university research: "It is busy work on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale."

I have gone ahead and inserted into mental contrasting all the information that I think should be merged—essentially what was recommended above. All that remains is to redirect, and I will let someone who is more familiar with these procedures do that. Biogeographist (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I said what I would do instead of performing the move myself (it wouldn't have taken much more time), it was precisely to wait for other input, but never mind. We should wait AfD closure before redirecting.

When I wrote that Mental contrasting#Application looks like a joke, I do not mean it is bogus research or unbelievable, I mean it fails WP standards by a mile. I have no knowledge of psychology, but what is written, even if completely true, is POV. Imagine if I wrote a similar paragraph for inclusion in Scientology#Auditing:

According to Hubbard, auditing can be easily taught and people can audit themselves .(ref) People can effectively use auditing for a variety of wishes in any life domain (e.g., academic, interpersonal, health). They can use the tool across their life span and regardless of their socioeconomic status or cultural background. Auditing helps to resolve short-term concerns and fulfill long-term wishes as it provides clarity and direction for both, striving for goals and disengaging from them. (etc.)

All these assertions may be true by mere placebo effect. The net effect on the reader is to make the impression that it is a scientifically justified process with well-known effects (which it is not).

In the case of mental contrasting, it may be scientifically justified, but it requires serious sourcing from secondary sources which the article does not provide; and I bet there has not many of them, since only a few people seem to care about the subject (which is quite the norm for specific research projects, no personal attack here). So while it may be true, it is not verifiable because of the lack of sources. Tigraan (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section Mental contrasting#Application needs to be rewritten. I just made a first attempt, removing the introductory weasel words "Scientific studies show..." and removing all of the sentences that you parodied in your apt Scientology analogy above. I also removed phrases that implied that mental contrasting was the cause of the outcomes of the studies. The excess of primary sources is still a problem, but at least now it is closer to a simple summary of the literature. Biogeographist (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Marrocco

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in any source, and no secondary sources, despite being tagged from November 2014. mikeman67 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is a Justice serving on a Canadian Provincial Court. --Enos733 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is a level of judgeship that counts as a legitimate notability claim if the article is properly supported by reliable source coverage, it is not a position that entitles any holder to permanently keep an article that's based exclusively on primary sources. Delete unless some real non-primary sourcing actually shows up before closure. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice he is actually the second most senior judge in the entire province as opposed to just a bog-standard trial judge? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario; Treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Thus adequate coverage is likely to exist, even if we can't find it ourselves (WP:NRVE). There seems, however, to be plenty of coverage of him in GNews. James500 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From NRVE: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. IOW, it's not enough to claim that sourcing is likely to exist; even if you don't add it all to the article in one shot, the onus is still on you to prove — not just assert, but "show your work here and now" prove — that a GNG-satisfying level of RS coverage does exist. As well, a WP:BLP is required to have at least one reliable source in it right off the top — but this has none, which means it was technically eligible (and still is) for an immediate WP:BLPPROD. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I disagree. NRVE also says that if coverage is likely to exist, deletion is per se not appropriate, whether that sourcing is produced or not. NRVE also says that if sourcing exists, it need not be directly cited at AfD. What that means is that I don't have to produce a webliography of sources that come up immediately in GNews, because asking me to do so would clearly be a time wasting tactic. Because if you want to see those, you need only click on the link at the top of this AfD, and it takes you straight to them. I haven't claimed that unspecified sources exist. I have claimed that specified sources exist in GNews, and I have told you exactly where to find them, and other sources are likely to exist because of the nature of the office (what I had in mind was biographies, law reports and other discussion of his judgements). What that passage you cited from NRVE is talking about is sources that are claimed to exist in cases where the nature of the topic (ie very trivial, obscure, etc, which this one isn't) makes it unlikely that any sources would exist. This, as a government source, is clearly a reliable source. As is this from the Law Society. So BLPPROD isn't available. James500 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources exist about the subject. This story in the Ottawa Herald describes his temperament inside the courtroom. This article in the Law Times discusses him as a potential ~~Supreme Court nominee~~ chief justice of the court. --Enos733 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, both of those sources fail to count as reliable sources. While there's no reason to doubt that they're accurate, what they aren't is either substantive — they contain no substantial information about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being simple lists of names — or independent of the subject — they're the websites of organizations he's directly involved in, and thus don't establish notability. By similar tokens, the president of a company doesn't automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because he has an "our president" profile on the company's website — and the mayor of a city, even a large one whose mayoralty constitutes an automatic NPOL pass, still doesn't get to keep an article whose only source is a list of the city's mayors on the city's own website. To establish notability, a source has to be reliable and substantive and independent — a source which is one of those three things, but fails to be the other two, does not establish notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say that the second most senior judge of a province passes the notability bar by virtue of his position. Certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN: "...judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." Not a politician, of course, but unelected judges are still covered by that notability guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that too, but the expanded criteria in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians says nothing about judges, which suggests to me that this policy includes elected judges only. I could be wrong, though. I just have a hard time believing that every judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is automatically notable. There are literally hundreds of Canadian judges in inferior/provincial courts. Of course the fact that he's an associate chief justice makes this a bit different. mikeman67 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was elected judges only it would discriminate in favour of American judges, which we try to avoid on Wikipedia. I didn't say every judge in Ontario was notable (there are well over 200 of them), and I don't think that's what holding sub-national office means in this instance (it's really phrased to include judges of American state supreme courts, which is only a tiny fraction of them, whereas all Canadian judges are judges of the provincial courts), but I think the second most senior one in the province certainly is. That, to me, is pure common sense. No policy or guideline is needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a political position of note - I've been in so many discussions to eliminate content. We should have really good reasons to delete an article, not really good reasons to keep it. Just because we can delete an article, doesn't mean we have to. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marrocco received some news coverage for being a lawyer in a high profile case (U.S. official trying to 'influence' case Bambi hearing told, appeared in The Toronto Star, August 8, 1991, Thursday, METRO EDITION). Additionally, his promotion to his current rank received media coverage (Bambi's man called to the bench, appeared in the The Globe and Mail (Canada) on November 9, 2005 Wednesday). He’s a high ranking judge, and he’s gotten a smattering of news coverage, so I’m voting keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these, as well as many more potential sources, were found on LexisNexis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sources win AFDs - or lack thereof... Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (scripting language)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any news source coverage, only covered on gaming forums and the creators website. ― Padenton|✉ 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article at least tries to make a case for notability. Not sure if it holds up to scrutiny, have to look further into it. —Ruud 11:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, no requested 3rd party references at all since October, 2013. SPA creation, editor not seen since 2011. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Switched to keep after Caroliano improved the page notably (pun intended.) –Be..anyone (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This language is used in the real world: http://www.compuphase.com/pawn/pawnprojects.htm

Also, it was covered in Dr. Dobbs, under it's previous name: http://www.drdobbs.com/the-small-scripting-language/184411074 Caroliano (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly found those two links. I will post more references latter, as they don't seem sufficient. But searching "small" on google will probably be quite difficult. Caroliano (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back. First, another reliable third party source, but not as in depth as the drdobbs article:

Pawn is described (a section with 3 paragraphs) in Game Engine Architecture, Second Edition by by Jason Gregory, on page 962, as one of the commonly used scripting languages for games. One can get the page via google books. Amazon Link.
I don't know if a moderately big and notable open source project counts as a reliable source, but: Embryo interprets a subset of Small and is used in Enlightenment_(software). This can also be confirmed by checking it is a package which e17 depends on all major Linux distros.

Now, more questionable evidence for notability:

Besides Small, Pawn and Embryo, another name related to the language is SourcePawn. You will also find hundreds of forum posts, wikis, websites, youtube tutorials, job recruitments, github repositories (more than 400, but most sourcepawn projects don't seem to have a github repository, as it is used by non-programmers. Pure Pawn has 183 repositories), etc, about it. There are more than 2500 plugins written for sourcemod alone, presumably in SourcePawn. They now seem to be developing an more modern version of SourcePawn (this Feb 04, 2015 17:51 news that I can't get a link of, Transitional Syntax).
It is covered not only in gamming related forums (and blogs, wikis, youtube, etc) but also at a lesser degree as an embedded language (plus the projects in the compuphase website).
One IDEs was developed especially for it: PAWN Studio. The last version has 35k downloads on sourceforge, 102 of those this week.
Compuphase claims that it was used as a scripting language in Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance that is a notable game, but I can't find a reliable source on that.
And there is some criticism of pawn, explaining why it isn't more used nowadays. Only the second link is remotely usable though. Compuphase seems to have abandoned the language and it's main implementation. But the forks are still alive.

That is what I could find, but I'm not on the gamming modding community. Caroliano (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing significant, in-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe listing this deletion discussion under games category could bring people who know how to search references for game modding, that seems one of the main uses of this language, if they are not still enough. Caroliano (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability where? Self-published (creator's website) references only. Clear fail of WP:NSOFTWARE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:: please look at the article again. I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion, among other additions. Caroliano (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The project is not commonly updated, but still alive. the last update was made in January 2015 Ikkentim (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Caroliano. Christian75 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/keep - The language is recognized by the language detection on github. 188 repositories which are mainly written in PAWN are hosted on github. Most of them seem to be related to the SA-MP game modification. I know I don't have much reasons to say keep, but still I think we should. Ikkentim (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the almost 500 repositories listed under SourcePawn, another recognized language by Github, that I linked in my vote. Caroliano (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion refers to "common sense". That is unfortunately not a concept referenced in WP:N, which calls for sources instead. Sandstein 19:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Eivind Hall

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely dubious notability, sources seem to indicate notability of the company, rather than of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Between the general lack of notability of the person directly, and the sourcing issues with the bronze star (see previous AFD), I don't see much reason to keep it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Alternatively, no objection to a selective merge/redirect to WorleyParsons, if desired. Neutrality^talk 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, relisting due to previous AFDs so that a wider consensus may be gained. Nakon 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging those who have previously examined its notability: Sionk, JoelWhy, Clarityfiend, The Magnificent Clean-keeper, NJ Wine, Arxiloxos, Fram, DGG, MelanieN, Whouk, J341933. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to MelanieN's comments in 1st AfD, this article was deleted 3 times before 2012. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parsons is one of the major engineering companies of the world, and was at the time he was CEO. CEO of that is sufficient for notability by common sense. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found it hard to pin down what his actual position is (and the article doesn't say), but according to several sites he is currently the "Global Director of Mega Projects" at Parsons Worley.[42] Some sites add the title "Executive Director"[43] or say that he is "second in command" of the company (I can't find a Reliable Source for that). BTW it's best to search under "Bill Hall" Parsons Worley. But for such an apparently high-powered position, he has received almost zero coverage of his own. The only news mentions I could find of him were at the time of the merger between Parsons and Worley. I don't think we have any "presumption of notability" for executives of companies, and IMO he fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Willing to userfy if someone wants to claim this article. Nakon 01:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WARx2

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

A previous version of this was snow deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warx2 (2nd nomination). This version makes a claim for a PBS audience choice award, which is not strictly true. It does appear in the list at #24, but there has been an extensive social media campaign and it looks like Wikipedia is a part of it. All other references either go nowhere or are social media. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability; lack of third party reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the usual way for a film to be notable is through (professional) critical reviews. It did tie for first in the PBS audience choice thing - see [44] and sort by audience choice - but there is no evidence (i.e. RS coverage) to suggest that is of any importance. If PBS had a critical writeup of the film, that would certainly count for something, but it appears it is just part of their list. On top of that the list ranking seems to be an automated formula and the film's placement comes exclusively form the audience choice vote. The only potentially noteworthy critical review I found is [45], which is certainly not enough by itself. However, I will reserve judgement for now in case other critical reviews turn up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the film is apparently slated for theatrical release on April 24, so there is a decent possibility of reviews coming out at that time. As such, it might make sense to put the article in draft space until the end of April top see if anything emerges. (Yes, I know the article can always be restored, but it is much more accessible in draft space and draft space in not indexed by search engines, so there is no harm to it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur that the award does not appear to be overly notable since I can't really find anything non-primary that discusses the award. By this I mean that other than the PBS page, there really isn't anything out there that says anything about the award other than press releases. I can't entirely see how the voting was done on the audience awards. The thing about the audience award at film festivals is that there's some form of quality control in that it's limited to the people who saw the film. If this is an internet only award, did they open up the voting to anyone who could open an account? Did they have a set audience pick the winner? That can make a huge difference with things of this nature. I'm mostly saying this since (as the admin that closed the prior AfD) there were multiple SPAs that came to the last AfD and at least one person voiced a concern about socking or meating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the film's being kept and if the award process would pass muster then that would help show notability along with the film review, but given that there were so many concerns about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at the prior AfD, it's a reasonable enough concern that this may have been the case with the award if it was decided upon an Internet vote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Getting an award for a movie isn't even possible before the release date, unless you are a beast who has the ability to warp or distort time. The Snowager-is awake 02:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the film has been released at film festivals, but not yet in theaters. This is a fairly standard model for indie films, so it is indeed quite possible to win an award before a film is released theatrically. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still trying to figure out what the PBS award actually is since this link says that it's essentially a rankings list. They give points to films based on various factors, one of which is whether or not the film won an award. It does not seem to be an actual award in and of itself and is entirely based on the number of wins. For example, Citizenfour won more awards in general, which resulted in it being ranked higher on the main page. However it was only nominated for one audience award at CPH:DOX, so technically it fell lower in the rankings since it did not win. The reason why WARx2 and America are tied at 1 is because they each won one audience award at some film festival. The site does not state where the award is received, but I can find nothing to actually show that this is an actual award that PBS hands out. From what I can gather, this seems to have been shown at some point last year, possibly at a small or indie film festival that doesn't register on IMDb for whatever reason. Just to make sure, though, I am going to email PBS about this. If it is an actual award in and of itself, then it can count towards notability. However if it isn't, which I'm guessing is probably the case, I think that they would probably like to know that someone is trying to say that PBS is handing out awards based on this listing and that they may like to clarify this somewhere on their website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

Send to Draft space per suggestion of ThaddeusB. It has already missed its March 20, 2015 theatrical release date, and the April 24 date is not for certain either. ThaddeusB is correct, in that if this has a 2015 theatrical release and gets coverage, we can always return it to mainspace. Even with its festival release, this is still a matter of TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with this being sent to draft space. I wanted to drop in to write that I did hear back from PBS and they said that they did not give out any awards and that the site was just aggregating awards from other locations akin to how Rotten Tomatoes collects reviews. So in other words, there is no PBS award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our company tried unsuccessfully to acquire WARx2 from The Strasson Group, We called PBS to verify the Audience choice Award, The person we spoke to told us that "it was true that WArx2 won this Award"

and the method used was PBS judges decided/ voted although social media popularity was part of the reason it was listed and nominated for the Award and an online screener was sent to PBS, WARx2 tied Dinesh Disouza's America for the top spot. So yes WARx2 won PBS Award, lets put our feelings aside. It's listed on PBS as an award winner, so why would they list it?fifausa — Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Foundation

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

It has claims to WP:ORG but I couldn't verify them, or establish that it meets WP:GNG. Has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't hit the notability mark, when I search for references I get nothing about them and they are lost in a sea of similar organizations. Not that I'm sure which "Equality foundation" I'm looking for. the external link in the article sends me to a "domain for sale" site. If the foundation gets in the news write a wikinews article about it. if they keep getting in the news and are notable write an article then. for now, delete.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez II

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

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability, WP:NACADEMICS and WP:BASIC. Not highly cited. Only an Assistant Professor. Jbh (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 10:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either he's non-notable or it's WP:TOOSOON I can't find discussions of his work, profiles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON to pass WP:PROF and I can see no evidence that he is exceptional in this respect. The article says only that he has published some things and won student and emerging-academic awards, none of which is sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Inother (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke and Mirrors (TV series)

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

Non-notable TV show from seven years ago sourced only to the network. No indication it is shown now. A Google search shows only this from the production company and the Wikipedia entry. Greykit (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any resemblance to notability is all smoke and mirrors. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy in the Hood

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

Stub about a show from 10 years ago. Sourced only to the Internet Movie Database. Has been tagged with "refimprove" for 9 years. Greykit (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable show, has not improved to show any notability. AlbinoFerret 19:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Dare Ya

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

TV show stub from 8 years ago. Sourced only to the network (a call for audience participation) and what seems to be an official website (which isn't working). "It was only shown for one season." Greykit (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dare anyone to find any notability. AlbinoFerret

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Norwegian Project

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

Should be merged into Norway. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the page for such discussion, article's talk page is the appropriate place. Here is strictly for discussing articles whose deletion seemed controversial. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - basically the only claim to notability is "Norway's first foreign aid project". Nothing else significant. If it was something significant, then "Norwegian foreign aid" would be notable (and a redirect), which I do not quite see. It seems to me there is little to merge to Norway (that's just trivia), but I would not oppose it. Tigraan (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Hegvald's link below constitutes enough coverage in my view, but a change of name is probably needed. Tigraan (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plsease address your double entry votes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not see the problem? I struck my previous 'delete' !vote when commenting. I do not retract the comment that follows, which was made before knowing that there was GNG material out there. Tigraan (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Norway. Keep- The article seemed to be of encyclopedic importance and notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a scholarly book on the project (referenced int he article and reviewed in American Anthropologist 72 (1970), p. 669 ff). It could possibly be merged somewhere, but the idea of merging this to Norway is really quite ridiculous. If it had been the Indo-British Project, would somebody have suggested merging it to United Kingdom? --Hegvald (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes I would have suggested it be merged. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève De Rocray

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

Dubbing actress who has very little amount of roles (outside of doing the dubbing voice for princess Jasmine, can't find much else notability) Wgolf (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people rarely become notable for dubbing alone. No reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 01:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David William Parry

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

I've been trying to find useful sources for this article for the last few days, but a Google search is picking up next to nothing, aside from the Wikipedia article and Amazon listings. The article itself needs work, as it currently just reads as a list of YouTube and Facebook pages. I'm not convinced this person's notable enough for inclusion. Microchip08 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another user left a comment on the talk page. Microchip08 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So_ahc: The reason for not being able to find recent activity on the page of David W parry's page is that he is an author, and he works with events and projects. Some of the things may create disrepute. But when being a friend to the house of lords and credited dramaturg, it should be enough to re-consider. the fact is that such pages are invaluable tools for authors artis and the like no matter the recent activity on iinternet. So_ahc so_ahc he also was falsly accused of neo fascism so ahc

My name is David William Parry. I am a Pagan priest, author and dramature. Astonishingly, as an active Libertarian,I have been accused on google of neo-fasciam by UK Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/04/508114.html) and Circle Ansuz (https://circleansuz.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/david-parry-neo-fascist/), along with the highly disreputable Searchlight Magazine. As someone active in politics, these slurs are to be expected. However,my work as a devout Pagan is beyond reproach. I am listed on the Fellowship of Independent Celebrants website ( http://www.foic.org.uk/home/celebrant-information?mid=719&pcp=false) as a Godhi. In fact, I am this country's first officially recognised Heathen priest. Additional links can be provided, but I am not sure how many are required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.208.162 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, and welcome to Wikipedia! Ideally, articles on Wikipedia—and especially biographies—should have at least two reliable, independent sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). The sources don't have to be online, but sometimes it helps. These links aren't really what we look for (we have a policy discouraging self-published sources). Have you been written about in any well known third-party sources, such as a newspaper? If this deletion request succeeds—and I hope we can find some sources so that it doesn't—don't worry. Microchip08 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has a bit of green mist!, the person who has created this deletion request is not really asking for any specific but just criticising, I think this is trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunes666 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, please read my sources again. I am most certainly not criticizing myself in UK Indymedia, or for that matter in the publication by Circle Ansuz. Also, the Fellowship (FOIC) is an organization run by Mr. Able with government sponsorship. How these links can be considered self-publishing is quite beyond me. Indeed, while I agree with you that my entry needs a better design (I did not create this page myself), and I suffer from being a part of that generation who had a full life before the advent of the internet, the TV and Media section is clearly not a series of listings from facebook and youtube. What is more, my publishers can confirm all of these details in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.208.162 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dear editor, you will see a number on interviews by both magazines and the media in that specific section. Sadly, due to my lack of internet skills, I do not always tell have links to give my secretary about these developemnts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.208.162 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Parry can also be found in these links from the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/10/visa-immigration-boycott-poet), the Searchlight Magazine (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/holocaust-denying-bishop-speaks-at-iona-london-forum-meeting), (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/life-continues-in-far-right-club-land) and the Alternate Religions Educational Network (http://www.aren.org/newsletter/2015-ostara/index.html#p=44) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posen607 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, this is David Parry and I need to stress (for the record) I am a Quaker-Pagan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.208.162 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor - I fail to see how D Parry cannot be considered noteworthy enough to have a wikipage- and wonder greatly at the reasons anyone could have for making such a claim - an author, a poet, a theatre director, a guest speaker at the House Of Lords on numerous occasions where he has even produced a play , a well known Quaker-Pagan, and a member of the Foundation for International Collaboration , I would have thought he was exactly the sort of person to be included.

D W Storer Autor & Poet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.96.54 (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, this is David Parry with extra external links Overseas artists boycott Britain in protest at visa clampdown Holocaust-denying Bishop speaks at Iona London Forum meeting {http://f-i-c.org/index.php5?&p=0201000001] Life continues in far right club land Guestspot - David Parry - Authout, Poet, Pagan, Dramaturge Deconstructing Mount Athos: An Image of the Sacred in English Literature- Preface by Bernard Hoose Deconstructing Mount Athos: An Image of the Sacred in English Literature Reviews About THA Talks Pagan events in and near London — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.208.162 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accepted this article and request to keep it as there are a number of independent substantial writings on the person and their work amoungst all the dead links and self-published material linked. so WP:GNG is met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low level writer and politician without any clear impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the various sources (in "media" and "references") are sufficient to establish notability, but damn David you aren't doing yourself any favors with the endless tldr blocks of text in this AfD. Take a step back and let others decided this.

As a side note, I see no evidence the subject is ever referred to by his middle name in reliable sources - the article should be renamed David Parry (poet) after the AfD closes, if the article survives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Parry has published 2 books with a small publisher of "occult" works, I am not seeing secondary coverage discussing or reviewing these books. The "reviews" section, for example, links to non-notable individuals "reviewing" his book on Amazon.com and personal blogs. Nor so I see much in the way of secondary sources about Parry. Citation #1, in the lede, for example, is the write-up about Parry on the website promoting his self-published book. Citations # 2 - 6 are from Azerbaijan Today, a publication with a worse-sourced Wikipedia page than Parry has. According to the interview in Azerbaijan Today (which may or may not be a RS), Parry is writing a book on Azerbaijani poet Mirza Fatali Akhundov who Parry states is "unknown" in the West, although he has a Wikipedia page. What troubles me is that Parry gives no indication of knowing Azeri,so this cannot be a scholarly work, nor, since it is not yet written, does it contribute much to notability. Overall, the Azeri sources have the look of an underfunded culture officer in an underfunded diplomatic delegation from a remote country getting all excited that a British poseur who has heard of his country. Citations #s 7 , 8 are a broken links, but both cite Gruntlers, an obscure literary circle Parry claims to have founded (or co-founded). # 9 cites one of his 2 un-reviewed, un-notable Mandreke books, # 10 cites wthe same Parry self-published, non-notable book as # 1. We are left with Azerbajian Today, and , really, it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iestyn Evans

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Condominium (novel)

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

Challenged PROD, unnotable book per WP:NBOOK, author also going through AfD here. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 00:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The opinions based on WP:V are compelling, and mandate deletion. Most or all "keep" opinions make the argument that, as one editor puts it: "Something happened. Something notable. What - there is no consensus". This line of argument ignores that notability is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for inclusion. If we cannot even tell from reliable sources what it is that happened, then there is no verifiable basis for anything resembling a coherent article. WP:V being a core policy, arguments at odds with it must be discounted, leaving me to find a consensus to delete the article. That does of course not prevent recreation if somebody does manage to find a new reliable source that tells us what kind of natural disaster, if any, happened in 1341 in India. Sandstein 19:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India Earthquake of 1341

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

Misinformation. We cannot build articles on flimsy sources such as (some of) these. Some sources presented here portray a flood, and not an earthquake. A quote from this article states that "The natural dam at Bhoothathankettu (old Bhoothathankettu), is a result of either an earthquake or huge land slide in one of these two historically recorded floods".

So sounds like there's a good chance that a significant flood occurred but there is speculation about a landslide or an earthquake. We shouldn't construct articles on uncertainty. Dawnseeker2000 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a victim of poor content infastructure. right now we have Geography of India which has no information about earthquakes (I'm not geologist but earthquakes seem notable to the field) instead we have an isolated List of earthquakes in India that is just going to incubate stub after stub instead of giving us a good article. I vote delete this article and add a section to Geology of India for earthquake information that can spin out to its own article if it gains sufficient material. but the current setup of just a list is going to generate stubs like this all the time. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...but only if - I'm always uncomfortable using blogs as the source for any information (ref 2). Finding sources in English for an event so long ago is difficult. I'm happy with reference 5 with establishing notability, but since it not what is probably considered a scholarly source, the article needs a few more of these. I would suggest that we not rush to delete this and allow time for the author to come up with more references. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 17:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response – Reference 5 discusses the flood of 1341. We can't keep this article as it is and hope for a better source (because there aren't any). We should go with the most trustworthy source that's in the article (I've added formatting):

Rajendran, C. P.; John, B.; Sreekumari, K.; Rajendran, K. (2009), "Reassessing the earthquake hazard in Kerala based on the historical and current seismicity", Journal of the Geological Society of India, 73 (6), Geological Society of India: 786

Rajendran et al. discuss (page 786) that some of the supposed events in India's existing earthquake catalogs have not been "critically evaluated". The 2009 paper goes on to say that a "glaring example" of this is the "oft-quoted Malabar Coast earthquake of 1341" that an early (1900) study of seismicity in India declared a "severe earthquake" and that an even earlier study (1846) deemed the 1341 event to be a "large storm". The paper's authors then state that "critical evaluation of the available data suggests that the 1341 event was not an earthquake but a storm..." and that "we have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396"... "this probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event...". This paper does not provide evidence of an earthquake and cannot be used to support the existence of such an event. Dawnseeker2000 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real evidence of an earthquake, ref #5 doesn't mention an earthquake at all and the Rajendran et al source is clear enough I think. Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tho we may need to retitle it--since it is not clear whether it was an earthquake, or flood, or storm. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As nominator, I don't think we exist to propagate uncertainty. We have an existing article on the municipality of Kodungallur that states it was either a flood or an earthquake. I think that's about all we need. We can't have dedicated articles on possibly or maybe. Since we have several reliable sources that states that this was more likely a flood than an earthquake, I've pinged the people at WikiProject Meteorology. It might be helpful to see what they have to say about this.

These sources support a storm :

Abram, David (2010), The Rough Guide to Kerala, Rough Guides, ISBN 9781848365414
Rajendran, C. P.; John, B.; Sreekumari, K.; Rajendran, K. (2009), "Reassessing the earthquake hazard in Kerala based on the historical and current seismicity", Journal of the Geological Society of India, 73 (6), Geological Society of India: 786
Paul, John L. (2010), "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris", The Hindu

Here are several sources that support the existence of an earthquake, but I would never use sources like these to support an article. We would need something far more reliable to support a WP article. The book source mentions an earthquake in 1341, but doesn't elaborate. I am doubtful of its reliability and the author has gone out on a limb. The whole book isn't available on Google Books so unable to verify his sources, if any. The newspaper's statements are dubious as well.

These sources support an earthquake:

Gopalakrishnan, C. V. (2002), "Kerala's proneness to earthquakes", The Hindu
Valdiya, K. S. (2005), "Preparing for earthquakes and hazard mitigation", Geology, Environment and Society, Universities Press, p. 87, ISBN 978-8173715051

I think what's going on with these two sources are the effects of oral tradition and storytelling; not science. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:AFDFORMAT, your post should be labelled "Comment", rather than "Delete"; using "Delete" gives the appearance of a double vote, because your !vote is already implied by your nomination. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: even if I was convinced (which I am not) there is adequate sourcing to establish some natural disaster happened in 1341, and sources differed on which it was; then, the article would need to show that controversy, and prove that it was notable. Said otherwise: a flood might be WP material, an earthquake might be WP material, and a discussion about what happened (flood or earthquake) could be WP material, but an unspecified event with no discussion is not WP material because nothing could be verified. Tigraan (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Undecided after Piotrus' comment, see below.Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is possible that the article needs to be renamed, because it is not 100% clear what exactly happened, the event is notable, and we have multiple reliable sources. We have (1) The Rough Guide to Kerala, which talks about a flood (which could be caused by a storm or an earthquatek); (2) "A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris", which again talks about a flood; (3)"Kerala's proneness to earthquakes", which talks about an earthquake; (4)Geology, Environment, and Society, which lists the earthquake in a list; (5) Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, which discusses the possibility of an earthquake; (6) The Face of the Earth, which discusses the earthquake briefly; and (7) Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, which discusses the appearance of the island of Vaypi (while an earthquake is not expressly mentioned as the cause, the discussion occurs in a footnote about an incident in the Azores where 18 islands appeared after an earthquake). Also, based on references from other works, it appears that one of the catalogs of earthquakes, authored by S.K. Guha, et al., may include the 1341 earthquake (quite a few books and publication refer to a catalog of Indian earthquakes, authored by Guha, et al., that begins in 1341). I have been unable to find an online version of the catalog of earthquakes, but there are hard copy versions of the catalogs. Unfortunately, I have been unable to determine which edition (if any) the 1341 earthquake is referenced in. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response – I think "discuss" isn't the right word. None of these sources talk about the event in any detail. They can't (and neither can we). What would the section headings of our article be? The Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India link provided above underscores my earlier point about this really being about tradition. What we would really need for an article are several densely-packed sources that are focused on this event and nothing else. That is what's needed to develop any sort of useful or meaningful WP article. Stubs don't really work around here, and that's all we'll have with the sources that have been presented; several sentences at most. If there was more to be said, it would have been done already. The existing (couple of sentences) at Kodungallur is what I imagine our "article" would look like. Dawnseeker2000 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because it cannot be expanded beyond a stub does not mean it should be deleted. We've pretty much solved the uncertainty problem, and now your issue is that "stubs don't really work around here", so we should delete it. It's a notable event; we can source it with reliable sources. I'm unaware of any guidelines or policies that say there's a minimum word requirement to keep an article. And there potentially is more to say. As I noted, there are potentially hard copy sources that could be used to further expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are no guidelines that say stubs are to be avoided, but its preferable to have well-developed and substantial articles. We have content on this event in the encyclopedia right now – I think the wording at Kodungallur covers it adequately. What we've established with the sources that we have right now is that no one is certain what happened in 1341, but that there was probably a flood. The best source that we have (that has several paragraphs detailing the lack of knowledge about that event) says an earthquake didn't occur. Writing about an earthquake is out, so what do we have left? Really not much, and that is what our article would be left with. I just don't think it's a good idea to create an article on an event that is not well-established. Look at this quote from the one journal article: "We have obtained independent evidence of flooding in the Bharathapuzha River basin that occurred sometime between A.D. 1269 and 1396 (Table 1A). This probably represents the 1341 flood.. a severe event that probably affected many river basins of Kerala." Notice what's written twice in this sentence? Probably. We shouldn't do this article. Dawnseeker2000 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake. There are a lot of sources that talk about an earthquake. I don't understand why writing about an earthquake "is out". You're right about the journal article; we probably shouldn't use it, because it doesn't really say anything about the 1341 earthquake or 1341 at all (so using that as a source would be original research). But we have, as I pointed out in my original !vote, a number of sources that confirm an earthquake. We can use those, because they don't say anything about just "probably". The vast majority of sources about this event talk about an earthquake. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it was probably a flood and not an earthquake." – It's the journal article. I'd prefer if we didn't create an article on a flood and I'll be really relieved if we don't say there was an earthquake. I'm sticking with the source that I trust (the journal article). I'd also prefer to not do an article on a flood because the sources that have been presented are not strong enough. WP needs to not breed or proliferate uncertainty. We need very strong sources to build articles (there's no reason not to). We're just lacking in that respect with this one. I'll say it again: we already have about as much as there is to say in the Kodungallur article. Let's delete this thing and be done with it. Dawnseeker2000 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why trust that source as definitively correct above all the other sources? I get that you trust the journal article, but why don't you trust any of the other sources? And it's really not true that we've said all there is to say. We know there are potentially other non-Internet sources out that should be explored to expand the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at these one by one

The Rough Guide to Kerala – The Rough Guides are not an authoritative source for meteorological events.

"A book on Kochi's rise at the cost of Muziris" – This is a book review by a newspaper (The Hindu) and the author is a journalist (Tanya Abraham) not a meteorologist. We need scientists talking about this supposed event, not journalists.

"Kerala's proneness to earthquakes" – This newspaper article discusses the supposed earthquake, which is disputed, so we're not going to write a dedicated article on it. So, quoting from this newspaper article, "earthquakes which had hit the State right from 1341 A.D. when the Vypeen Island which did not exist before 1341 and was thrown up from the sea after a severe earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale". Pretty astonishing claim. I'd never use that as a source for an event and I'd question anyone who did.

Geology, Environment, and Society – A brief mention of an earthquake in a list is not adequate to support a stand alone article

Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India – This underscores my earlier point, nearly word for word, because it says "According to traditions this coast in 1341 was the scene of a very severe earthquake". It's not OK to use sources with that kind of language.

The Face of the Earth - Quoting the tidbit from this book, "As a matter of fact it is a mass of marine sediment which was driven into its present position during an earthquake in 1341". Really. Sounds like he's desperately trying to convince the reader, and again, there's just no detail. I would never use a source that uses that kind of language.

Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society – Here we go. Listen to this author, who is speaking about his source, "...I have not considered the description specific enough for the text, but see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the fact: –"The island of Vaypi, on the north side of Cochin, rose from out the sea in the year 1341..." Nope, can't use it.

So I think it all comes down to an editors (and Wikipedia's) minimum standards for sources. I prefer to use sources that cannot be questioned because they're written by authoritative agencies or authors. Like I said, there's no reason not to. Dawnseeker2000 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your preference seems to be higher than Wikipedia's guidelines. There is no requirement for many of the restrictions that you are trying to place. We don't need only meteorologists talking about flood events. Many meteorological articles use sources written by journalists, rather than meteorologists; to say that we should only use articles written by scientists may be the standard you use in adding sources and information to articles, but that does not translate into a reason to delete this article. I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the third source and would question anybody who did. Your logic here seems circular: The event that happened was disputed because we do not have any reliable sources that definitely say what happened, so any sources that definitely say what happened must not be reliable, and we can't use it. On the fourth bullet point, I agree; it's not enough to support an article alone; however, it can be used as an additional source to support what happened. There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes the fifth source; it provides an historical context. Your logic on the sixth source is, again, circular. You don't want to use that source because you distrust it for some reason, but there's really no legitimate reason to distrust that source. I also see no issue with the last bullet point's source. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a decent standard for quality of sources. Regardless of the perceived quality of these sources, just what exactly is this stub going to say with what we've got? The process, by the way, should be to locate a great source, then write the article. Writing an article with the hope that someone, somewhere will come along and rescue it with a proper source is backwards. It's fine to use journalists as sources for modern events with dozens or hundreds of sources, but we need scientists take on things for events that are in question as to whether they took place at all. I really didn't intend to spend so much effort on this thing, and I really didn't think I'd be shooting myself in the foot by asking at the WikiProject talk page. If you want to be responsible for writing crap, go ahead. My stance is still delete. Just don't say earthquake in your article. Dawnseeker2000 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I'll expand it the best I can (but I'm not going to do that if it's just going to get deleted). The bolded part may be your standards, but that's not grounded in any WP policy or guideline. And I don't know how you've shot yourself in the foot by asking the Meteorology WP to come here; by coming here and engaging in the discussion, we've been able to establish that there are more sources that discuss the event than originally thought. That's the purpose of an AFD—to determine if an article should be deleted, after reviewing all of the information available and the pros and cons. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and rewrite. Something happened. Something notable. What - there is no consensus. Rename to Natural disaster in India, 1341 and rewrite in light of the sources presented here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a plausible option, too, if there is enough to write about. I would not be a fan of a "X says, Y says, Z says" article, but I cannot really quote a guideline against that. Tigraan (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't write a sensible article on the "something that happened in 1341." There doesn't seem to be any agreed information about this event in WP:RS. -- 120.23.176.56 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)— 120.23.176.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thy name is

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not convinced that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Previous AfD was closed with only one comment due to the nominator's sockpuppetry rather than the notability fo the subject. Pinging those who have commented on its notability previously: Nathanmurray1, Lambiam, Jnelson09. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, article creator. That said, as snowclones go, this one's notability, honestly, shouldn't even be in question. This was coined by the William Shakespeare in one of his most revered works: Hamlet, and is probably the most quotable line from the play after "To be or not to be..." (which also has its own Wikipedia page, incidentally). The term has been used constantly ever since over the last 400 years throughout the English speaking world. Recent examples:

"Fragility, thy name is Iran" -- from the Asian Times on March 29, 2015
"Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama." -- From the Boston Globe on March 27, 2015
"Stockholm Syndrome, thy name is Beauty and the Beast." -- from VH1 on March 28, 2015
"Overconfidence, thy name is not Sutter." -- from The Los Angeles Times on March 20, 2015
"Treachery, thy name is 'Justified'" -- from The Washington Post on February 24, 2015
"Progress, thy name is not Dick Durbin." -- from The Wall Street Journal on March 19, 2015

Honestly, I could do this for hours. It has penetrated the English lexicon indisputably.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me to be a valid WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I think the examples could be trimmed down a little, though. Tigraan (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeth Kollam

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

Non-notable individual. References are either attack sites or primary sources. Unable to find reliable sources. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the general notability guideline. It doesn't seem possible to even verify the claimed screenwriting credits. --VeryCrocker (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom Educationtemple (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Fort Myers, Florida

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

Non-notable as a WP:NEO. The term is an ill-defined local colloquialism. While the term itself gets used quite often by media sources, it has no actual definition. The southern edge of the city of Fort Myers could be "south Ft. Myers", or the Cypress Lake, Florida CDP a bit outside of the city could be since it has a Ft. Myers postal designation or is it San Carlos Park, Florida CDP, miles south of the city, but still with a Ft. Myers postal designation? The article is without sources and nothing to define what the scope actually is. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no text, and no evidence that South Fort Myers is anything more than a neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Junglepussy

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

Well not sure if this counts as a contested prod since it was removed by a logged off ip, but this comes across as a unotable artist who is too soon. She might need a page someday but not yet Wgolf (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)withdrawnWgolf (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you had followed WP:BEFORE you may have found, in addition to the three decent sources already in the article, coverage from MTV, FACT, XXL, Dazed, mask, V Magazine, and The Fader. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a quick read-through it seemed WP:TOOSOON, but a Google search confirmed she meets WP:GNG. Wgolf, are you convinced enough to withdraw this nomination or are you still concerned and want further opinions? Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-I think I was kind of afraid to look up Junglepussy on google for well obvious reasons. Anyway seeing that its notable, withdrawing. Wgolf (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Nasser Alrazooqi

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

not notable director of IT . Many newspaper notices about his various projects, but they do not add up to notability DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Longevitydude (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two close AFDs I'm opting for not relisting a second time and closing as no consensus. Instead of !voting, my own (admittedly quick) research using google.de indicate they very probably meet WP:BAND, and Michig's book sources pretty much clinched it §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Diamonds

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD involved only 2 people, BenLinus1214 and Gaff, so ended in no consensus. J04n and Fixer23 also looked into the group's notability at WP:Articles for deletion/Funky Diamonds (album). Dawn Bard tagged this for notability. Does have an article in 2 other languages, but I wasn't sure that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for 7 years, so it would be very good to finally get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two major label albums, at least one of which was a hit in Japan it seems, some coverage here, here and here - could really do with German editors to bring the German WP article up to scratch as it seems probable that further coverage exists in German sources. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of a lasting impact. Longevitydude (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Unsure right now, the German article looks like it is notable but then it is deceiving when you look at the refs-only refs are to Youtube. Wgolf (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Harter, J. J., & Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. (2011). Pieces of history: The life and career of John J. Harter. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris Corp.

[2] Woods, L. T. (1993). Asia-Pacific diplomacy: Nongovernmental organizations and international relations. Vancouver [B.C.: UBC Press.

[3] Drouin, M., & Malmgren, H. B. (1981). CANADA, THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD ECONOMY. Foreign Affairs, 60(2), 393-413.

[1]

[2]

[3]