WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2013 DECEMBER 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 December	20 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 07:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Social telemarketing

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

An article about an non-notable marketing neologism. Salimfadhley ( talk) 23:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite ( talk) 02:30, 21 December 2013 (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. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

FlexRAID

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

Sources used in this article do not show evidence of wiki-notability—they consist entirely of pages in other wikis, forum posts, and some primary sources (documentation etc.) I tried to find some independent sources myself, but all I could find in Google Books about "FlexRaid" is that another company ( American Megatrends) used to make (or perhaps even still does) firmware under this name/trademark. I wasn't able to turn up any independent coverage of Bakayoko's FlexRAID (the subject of this article). Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete ~~Keep, but rewrite~~: Seems like this software product is still used by a certain number of people, at least according to the product forum, and now it seems to be called RAID-F. ~~So, I'd say we should keep the article, but have it rewritten according to the already present hatnotes.~~ Though, at the same time it seems there are no notable sources available, not even for rewriting the article as a basic stub so it fits the Wikipedia rules. Also, the section in Non-standard RAID levels article, from which this article is linked, should be ~~edited~~ deleted. ~~— Dsimic ( talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)~~ — Dsimic ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Rewrite based on what? The sources (forums, wikis) fall below the WP:GNG standard. Being "used by a certain number of people" isn't good enough. My cars, my house, and plenty of custom software I wrote are "used by a certain number of people", but that doesn't justify Wikipedia articles for them. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - Hehe, that's very well said, especially with the examples provided from everyday life. :) On second thought, I'll be changing my vote to "delete." — Dsimic ( talk) 21:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: FlexRAID and Transparent RAID are not open standards but rather proprietary implementations of RAID. Both terms are trademarked brand names. It's clear the original authors were advertizing, as Chronomaster5779 voiced on the talk page. I would vote to merge with RAID, but as Dsimic pointed out, the sources are unreliable. – voidxor ^{(
talk |
contrib)} 02:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete A bit of advertising or WP:PUFF for a proprietary technology that, per comments above, falls short of WP:GNG. David in DC ( talk) 03:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
delete like above, thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (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) Ethically ^(
Yours) 15:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

White Genocide (theory)

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

Fails notability; I can't find use of the term in mainstream news, or much use anywhere outside of a handful of Internet wingnuts. Please note this article is not about Armenian assimilation, which is already covered in White Genocide. Blackguard 22:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Week keep - It's not much in the mainstream, but on par with other fringe theories promoted by places like Stormfront. I'm fairly certain we could dig up some academic sources that study its believers. EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - with a bit of improvement from stronger editors. This is certainly a trope which is played by a number of organisations and individuals around the world, playing into their motto of the Fourteen Words. Also, the first sentence finishes with four academic references, so this is a subject of study which is not too niche Tátótát ( talk) 17:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep It's only mentioned briefly in Ferber's book. However, it is discussed in an academic work and title of the chapter--see Barbara Perry's article. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: The article contains a collection of disparate concepts and organizations that is only thematically connected to 'white genocide' theory. The 'theory' itself has little to no academic or mainstream coverage. - Portesamo217 ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn by user; result keep. ( non-admin closure) Ethically ^(
Yours) 07:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ripple (payment protocol)

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

Another bit- (this isn't based on Bitcoin at all, actually) cryptocurrency deletion discussion.

All sources are either forum posts, GitHub links, and links to the currency's webpage. Doesn't appear to meet criteria as per WP:GNG. The only source I could find that wasn't passing happens to be a reliable source, Forbes, located here, but one alone doesn't cut it. [ citation needed] 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Soft Delete That looks like one of the blogs hosted by Forbes rather than Forbes itself. And as such is little more notable than e.g. a Blogspot Blog. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
~~Weak~~ keep. The multitude of citations are all primary sources. However, I found an article in IEEE Spectrum about it [1] in just 30 seconds of googling, so probably more exists. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Found another article in The Verge [2] which covers Ripple and Zerocoin, although it mostly cites from the aforementioned IEEE one for info about Ripple (lazy web journalists). There are also some brief mentions / academic citations for Ripple like [3]. If we can have articles like Tahoe-LAFS based essentially on the same level of coverage (that one survived an AfD), why not this? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Also found [4] in Informationweek (although that site seems to be more or less a blog aggregator these days...) and a chunk in this loser's roundup in Digital Trends. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Co-coverage with bitcoin in Financial Times [5] and Esquire [6]. Seems to meet WP:GNG with all the above. The article should be broadened to cover the company as well; there's funding info an so forth in those sources. (I see it was renamed a couple of times in a [mistaken] attempt to make it tech-only.) Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

And [7] says "Today, OpenCoin, better known as the developer of open source payment protocol, Ripple, ..." so there's even more coverage if plug their (somewhat confusing) old name together with Ripple [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Withdrawing nomination due to clear establishment of sourcing material and little to no delete votes raising any other known concerns prior to some guy who chooses not to reveal his own name (muh privacy). [ citation needed] 21:17, 21 December 2013 (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. No consensus to delete, and also no consensus to merge and redirect. A discussion about seeking consensus regarding merging and redirecting can take place on the talk page, and might benefit from being framed as a merge/not-merge only discussion rather than where 'delete' is also an option as is the case here. Daniel ( talk) 07:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Our Fragile Intellect

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

Journal article that received a blip of coverage when it was released last year, and has not seen much in the way of longevity. Consensus appears to be, based on other articles on academic journal articles, that only ones with significant longevity tend to be kept in the project, and this does not appear to have that sort of significance. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 22:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. Notable author published notable paper in a notable journal covered by around 100 significant mainstream notable sources discussing a notable controversy about the " Idiocracy" hypothesis, a discussion that continues today. Articles needing expansion are not deletion candidates. The article meets and exceeds all requirements for notability and reliable sources. Viriditas ( talk) 23:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notability does not diminish even if, as suggested by the OP, the coverage has tapered off. The argument by Viriditas that coverage continues is not needed here. The topic satisfies WP:GNG because it was covered widely. Binksternet ( talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Either keep and expand to reflect commentary about the journal article in secondary sources, or merge into Evolution of human intelligence. It's clearly encyclopedic information that would fit well as a summary in that page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- That's actually an article I hadn't considered when I sought out merge targets. A merger to there certainly makes sense as well. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 00:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - No, not a good target for redirection. It is certainly true that this topic is a good fit for inclusion or mention within the Evolution of human intelligence, the important point is that this topic is already notable on its own. A secondary point is that Evolution of human intelligence is much larger and contains the theses of many. Binksternet ( talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    - I'm OK with keeping this page, and referring to it per WP:Summary style in the evolution page, but it's worth considering the merge possibility as well. I realize that there has been some commentary about the journal article in secondary sources, so I'm not arguing for deletion, but I also feel that it's unusual for Wikipedia to have a page about every paper published in Trends in Genetics or any other professional scientific journal. It comes down to just how extensive the commentary about the journal paper really has been at this time. It's true that the evolution page "contains the theses of many", and the question then becomes how notable this thesis is, in comparison with those others. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
~~Page creator has convinced me (nominator on PROD) to keep~~. I will add sources to the article. As just explained to the page creator on my own user talk page, I had sources already at hand criticizing the article. Once we implement WP:NPOV here by adding sources to the article, and revising article text in accordance with the sources, all will be well. Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful discussion. I will first add the sources to the article talk page, and later to article text. (P.S. Merging in the manner indicated above would not have been a bad idea either.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 01:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. Seems to have achieved a life of its own. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC). reply
Delete. This is a single article that has had a grand total of 8 citations. Yes, 8. As with many journal articles today, there was a brief news blip when it came out (driven by press releases), but then silence. There is no way this passes WP:N. I don't usually disagree with Xxanthippe, but the only life this has is that of the Dead Parrot sketch. -- 101.119.14.244 ( talk) 05:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Merge to Gerald Crabtree or delete. Our fragile intellect, Part I has very few citations (8 on GScholar, including one for Part II) and Part II has even fewer, but the article got a lot of media coverage. Therefore, I believe we should properly treat it per WP:EVENT. In this frame, I note that the article received the required "significant and in-depth coverage", with multiple major newspapers interviewing various scientists about the article; but it did not "receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". All the secondary sources are from November 2012. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Published works are not treated as "events" on Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG, the paper meets our requirements for a stand-alone work, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of itself, including ongoing coverage after the work was published. In mid 2013,New Scientist called Crabtree the leading proponent of the theory while discussing the hypothesis and citing the paper, and Parviainen et al. 2013 recently cited the hypothesis (and the paper) in their research on the design of interactive technology. More examples can be found. Strangely, Qwertyus, your most recent to the article seemed to introduce bias by claiming that Steve Jones was an expert on the current genetics literature [14] when in fact he is an Emeritus Professor who hasn't had any papers published in the scientific literature on genetics in many, many years (decades) and probably isn't the least bit familiar with current research. Viriditas ( talk) 03:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
~~The last two comments have made me feel more inclined to merge, and less so to keep.~~ I'd like to see if editors who want to keep know of sources to refute those comments. But, looking at the Scholar hits, most of them are either comments to the editor or responses to those comments, or very minor secondary comments, clearly inconsistent with ongoing scholarly interest. I looked then for Google News hits, going back in time, and I was surprised that I couldn't find any (am I missing something??). As for merging, it really ought to go both to the biographical page and to the evolution page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- I asked if I was missing something, and based on the most recent edits to the page, I was. Some of the discussion below is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I don't find it very convincing, but what I do find convincing is the addition of new sources to the page itself, where there does seem to have been enough independent commentary about the paper to satisfy GNG. There still doesn't seem to be a lot of such independent commentary, once one separates out the commentary about Idiocracy generally, so I'd call it a close pass of GNG, not an overwhelming one. So I'm back to where I was at the start, about equally receptive to either merge or keep. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Merge is now my considered view of what to do After examining the article, which has received a flurry of recent edits, there just isn't any there there. Yes, it's an event, not a major publication in the scientific literature, and the event is past and soon to be forgotten. The suggestions of where to merge made above make sense to me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - The article on Our Fragile Intellect is no different than our article on the publication Is Google Making Us Stupid? Such publications are not classified as "events" anywhere on Wikipedia, they are classified as notable works. It's also fallacious on multiple levels to argue that it must be a 1) major publication, that the 2) publication occurred in the past, and 3) predicting it will soon be forgotten when at least two recent publications in the last six months (New Scientist and Challenges) have demonstrably not forgotten it but have highlighted its importance. None of these things have anything to do with how we create, maintain, or write encyclopedia articles. Additionally, the "Idiocracy hypothesis" has been written about by many authors. Your blind assertion that this hypothesis will be "soon forgotten" is so incredibly historically ignorant, one is forced to ironically consider that the Idiocracy is indeed upon us (Hail Brawndo). Evidence indicates that this proto-hypothesis has been under discussion since the earliest days of Hindu cosmology first developed the concept of yugas thousands of years ago followed notably by Hesiod (750-650 BCE) reigniting the discussion. Much later, with the rise of the industrial revolution, it was reinvented by fiction writers who drew upon the new technology for inspiration, beginning with " The Machine Stops" (1909) and later, " The Marching Morons" (1951). After that, the list is quite large. Not only isn't this idea going to be soon forgotten, but the notion that our intellect is declining is woven into the very fabric of human culture as a patterned monomyth. The latest version of this hypothesis has been recently published in the journal Intelligence by Woodley et al., 2013, under the title, "Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time." Far from going away, this is an enduring topic that has been with us since the beginning of recorded history. Viriditas ( talk) 04:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    - The difference is that "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" has 401 GS citations; it's a notable article. This one has just 8 GS citations. It is not a notable journal article. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, any notability of Idiocracy, Hesiod, The Marching Morons, etc. is irrelevant to the question here: is the journal article which is the subject of this Wikipedia article notable? Because this Wikipedia article is about the journal article, not about the concept. And the only news coverage of this journal article was a brief spike, generated by press releases, in November 2012. The journal article has been ignored since then. It is not a notable journal article. -- 101.119.14.36 ( talk) 11:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      - Not true. There are currently 16 sources in the article, not 8, and that clearly meets the WP:GNG. There are also additional sources (Parviainen et al., 2013). There isn't a single argument about inheriting notability anywhere in this discussion. The point that you apparently misunderstood was that WeijiBaikeBianji claimed that the article (and its concept) will "soon be forgotten" which I have shown is false. 4 of the 16 sources are dated from 2013 not 2012 (5 if you count the one I've added above). Your claim that it has been ignored since it appeared in November 2012 is also wrong, as the sources show it has been covered in November and December of 2012, into the months of February, April, and May 2013. Furthermore, writer Andrew Brown directly draws the connection between Crabtree's thesis and its long history in fiction and evolutionary biology, not me. The notability isn't inherited from anything, it's part of a larger discourse per the sources, demonstrating its longevity and its place in history. And, it's Sally Adee of New Scientist, not me, who asserts his authority as a leading proponent of the hypothesis. So we see the notability, the significance, the longevity, and the authority asserted directly by reliable sources. Viriditas ( talk) 12:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        The number 8 refers to citations on Google Scholar (a very small number, and a sign that the academic community has taken no notice). However, if we're talking sources in the article, I count only 10, almost all from Nov 2012. The one from 2013 has only a passing mention of Crabtree's paper. And again, "his authority as a leading proponent of the hypothesis" is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. Crabtree may indeed be notable, but we already have an article on him. -- 101.119.14.134 ( talk) 00:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. The merge discussions above do not stop me from seeing that the topic meets WP:GNG because of wide coverage in the media. As such, it can have its own article. I am still in favor of keeping the article. Binksternet ( talk) 00:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

As someone who is willing to either keep or merge, I'll point out that the arguments for merging rest on editors disagreeing about how "wide" that "wide coverage" you refer to really is. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep sufficient sources pass WP:GNG. Notability isn't GS citation counts, sometimes notability is seen other ways. So long as there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. -- GreenC 07:23, 24 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Quark Coin

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

Article was tagged for a G4 speedy deletion, but I removed it based on the fact that the article looks mostly different from it's deleted counterpart. However, I still feel that while it can evade speedy criteria, that it doesn't clearly establish notability per WP:GNG. Only reliable sources are from Heavy and Russia Today, and RT only mentions Quark in passing. I am neutral. [ citation needed] 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Article has been rewritten but suffers from the exact same issue as the last version deleted a week ago, insufficient sources to demonstrate notability, which is why I proposed speedy deletion. The RT Keiser Report episode is not a reliable source, it is an opinion piece. It starts with a disclaimer where RT explicitly distances itself from the content. Heavy.com is an entertainment website, not a news source, and the linked article is another opinion piece. Smite-Meister ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Quark Coin is the fourth largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization. It has received significant coverage in the cryptocurrency world. I don't see why it is un-notable. Without making the Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS too much, articles about more copycat, less original, less significant Cryptocurrencies exist. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If you think it's notable then demonstrate it with reliable sources. I don't really get your point of first pointing out Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and then resorting to that particular fallacy anyway. Smite-Meister ( talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Quark Coin is a pump and dump scam at worst, and presents no novel development or features at best. Regarding Max Keiser's opinion on Quark, Max is (to my understanding) an early holder of Quark and it is speculated he was "incentivised" for his opinion and publicity, which makes anything from him incredibly unreliable. VinceSamios ( talk) 23:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- We do document bad things in Wikipedia as well. The question to answer at AfD is whether it meets WP:GNG. Withholding my judgement on that for the moment. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 06:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 06:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. I did my own search but this one is mostly covered in passing in "also ran" articles like [15] [16]. heavy.com's coverage is somewhat more detailed, but also in a group article. I'd not give it much weight because of the questionable qualifications of the author. It would be fine to include Quark Coin in a list with at most a paragraph of explanation perhaps, but a standalone article doesn't seem justified just yet. (As an aside, reading Max Keiser's bio quickly shows he can't be considered a reliable source on any financial matter.) Someone not using his real name ( talk) 06:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
delete like above, thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 07:40, 26 December 2013 (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 redirected to Physical Review. ( non-admin closure) Ethically ^(
Yours) 07:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Physical Review Applied

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

Scientific journal, the first issue of which still has to appear. Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 22:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Please read the history of the Physical Review, though. They are not some vanity publishing operation; they began publishing in 1893. The Phys. Rev. series, of which PRApplied is the latest member, has many of the most famous physics journals in the world. PRapplied based on their web page will soon be well known. One could have waited for the first published paper to enter the wikipedia page but they seem to be looking to publish papers in early 2014 per their web page. Consult any physics professor; they will say the same. So why wait? by the beagle, 19 December 2013

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Each journal is considered separately by the notability criteria and needs reliable, third-party sources to warrant its own article. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 01:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strong keep. Journal has awesome provenance. Nominations like this make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC). reply

"Awesome provenance" can only be interpreted as a case of WP:INHERIT. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Physical Review, where it is already mentioned. Since when has AfD not made Wikipedia look ridiculous? This new journal is not yet indexed in selective databases nor could I find multiple in depth independent RS about the topic. It fails both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG thresholds for notability. However the existence of the journal as a business concern is verifiable and it is a plausible search term, so a redirect is justifiable. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strong keep per Xxanthippe. This is essentially a spin-off article of Physical Review. Deletion is totally inappropriate; this a very silly nom. A merge to Physical Review is a possibility, but that article has spun off all the journals in the family to separate articles. Consistency requires doing the same here. -- 101.119.14.244 ( talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
When it properly indexed like the other spin-off journals, it too will become a spin-off from Physical Review. Until then a redirect is sufficient. I think "jumping the gun" makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. It has not even published any articles yet, I gather. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect Keeping would be wp:CRYSTAL at this stage - it's only just started considering articles. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Physical Review - completely non-notable as of yet, and any claims it does are clearly failing WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when they've published a few things and been shown to be notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect This is a typical scenario. We know the topic will be notable. However it is not notable yet under the guidelines. So there is no choice but to WP:USERFY and make a reminder to check back in a few months for sources and recreate. It's busy work, but what can you do. The deletion is not permanent until independent sources are available to justify a standalone article. -- GreenC 07:32, 24 December 2013 (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 Mancow's Morning Madhouse; anyone is free to merge the content which is available behind the redirect to that target at their leisure. Daniel ( talk) 07:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Freak (Wally Kozielski)

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. The included references, except for one, are all either passing trivial mentions or links to Myspace, Facebook, and blogs, which fail WP:RS. The previous AFD resulted in a redirect, however an anon IP undid this unilaterally. This should be either deleted and salted, or redirected and protected. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Selective Merge to Mancow's Morning Madhouse. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Merge or Delete no independent notability. No source with him as the primary subject. All sources local stuff with tangential mentions.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW close, given this may also be covered by G5 Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Aedin Adams

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

Unremarkable, non-notable director and actor claimed known for his roles in two films, however, the roles were those of extras. Would generally follow with another A7 CSD, but this time, the roles as extras are not clearly indicated, so there appears to be an assertion of significance. Only citations are the subject's own website, Twitter, and IMDb. Created previously by socks and now by another newly registered user. Repeatedly created, recommend salting. Cindy( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Actually, it's only been truly deleted once. I deleted it too soon and restored it to give some leeway. It remained up for over an hour without improvement. Then Yunshui deleted it. Peridon ( talk) 22:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete Adams's career so far seems to be two bit parts and two rumoured future parts (as told in a previous version of article). Nothing wrong with that - unless you're Shirley Temple, Daniel Radcliffe or Emma Watson, you don't become a star in your first film. It is too soon for an article, though. I gave advice about referencing and notability, and use of multiple accounts and IPs that was also separately given by Yunshui, and seems not to have been taken in by the author. I would be fairly certain that this article is by the original author. I agree with Cindy that there is an apparent assertion of significance, and that it is not borne out by the apparent facts. According to the previous version I mentioned, only one of the parts seems to be in a post-production film, the other being listed as 'filming'. I wish the subject here luck, but Wikipedia isn't here to help people up the ladder. Peridon ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

By the way, I see nothing in the article or at IMDb that justifies the 'director' label. Peridon ( talk) 22:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Two extra roles in films that haven't even been released yet and zero media notice? WP:WAAAAAAAAAY TOOSOON. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Toosoon.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm tempted to speedy it again ( G5 could apply), but we might as well get this discussion on record. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO; clearly non-notable. I'd recommend that the deleting admin also salts the page, since there are at least two sockpuppets of the original creator out there that I know of, and I suspect there'll be more. Yunshui 雲‍ 水 08:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete wp:TOOSOON The linked articles aren't about the actor but about the film. If there's the specific issue with socks and repeated recreation that's been mentioned, salt. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Only created twice. There was a closely named sock and an IP on the first time, and a totally different name for the re-creation. I think there's confusion because I restored it the first time after deleting it rather soon after it was tagged. Peridon ( talk) 13:59, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Justin Edl

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

No claims of any special notability. Many references but none robust and independent - several now dead links and the rest all seem to be blogs. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Speedy - A7 No indication made of his importance or notability. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:24, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Charles Scott (writer)

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

I don't think he's notable. An amateur athlete, a middle-level executive, and an writer of essays for magazines. No awards. The only coverage is in less than reliable sources or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Only minor mentions in minor sources. He's a successful man but doesn't meet our notability standards either as a business person or a writer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:34, 25 December 2013 (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 speedily deleted as a hoax. Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Palm City Metro

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

There are no sources and I cannot find any information about it on the internet. Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Surfer43_ ¿qué_pasa? 19:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - only external link is a Facebook, unable to find anything else, even changing keyword to rail, train, etc.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Reads as made up; no sources, reads like a kid railfan's dream (7-Eleven as a train stop?). Palm City doesn't have the organized government to organize a transit system, which I'm sure Martin County or some kind of regional consortium would do for them rather than any kind of community action. Nate • ( chatter) 07:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete At best wp:Crystal. My search has come up with nothing where I'd expect to see press releases at a minimum - and a Metro in a town of 20,000? Unlikely. Even more so with 7-Eleven as a stop. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:43, 20 December 2013 (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. Deleted by Callanecc ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under G12 (copyvio) Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Allen Wastler

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Editor without any notable accomplishments. ...William 18:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Soft Keep Quick search for sources [ found an interview] and managing editor: CNBC isn't nothing. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:01, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Pokemon Quartz

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

Non-notable video game. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. This was copypasted from Wikia and should have stayed there. Surfer43_ ¿qué_pasa? 18:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: Fixed nom error (moved from [17]) czar ♔ 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) czar ♔ 23:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strong delete per previous AfD - it's an unofficial, non-notable (and probably illegal, not that it matters here) ROM hack. Could be speedied, if it's substantially the same content as the previous version. Ansh 6 6 6 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete This article was copied and pasted from Wikia, has absolutely no sources, and was deleted in a previous AfD. No evidence of notability. If the text of the article is mostly the same as the last version, it should be G4'd. Novusuna ^talk 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. ( edit conflict) Same as Pokemon chaos black, article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 00:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - more non-notable unofficial games trying to cash in on notable IP. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
comment We cannot G4 delete this as the new article is far superior to the old one, and actually includes references. However I do not think it is worth keeping this. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 19:50, 20 December 2013 (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. Daniel ( talk) 07:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Cristóbal Cabral de Melo Alpoim

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

The article seems to have been created for essentially genealogical value, there are three genealogical books that link to snippets with little info, just found year of death) and doesn't appear to be particularly notable. CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. A reasonable search for online sources finds nothing but mirrors and genealogical sources. Fails GNG and BASIC. The subject is verifiable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment -- The question should be whether the " Elected Regidor and Captain of Horses" was a notable position in this Spanish colony. If it was then he is notable; if not then NN. I do not have the answer to that question. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:42, 23 December 2013 (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 United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2006#District 3. ( non-admin closure) Ethically ^(
Yours) 15:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Paul R. Nelson

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

Unsuccessful political candidate who has called a radio talk show a few times. Not really seeing any true notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2006#District 3, where he's mentioned with the results. Dru of Id ( talk) 18:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2006#District 3, per Dru of Id. Good call. Unelected politician. Carrite ( talk) 02:44, 21 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Antonio Cabral de Melo

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

The article seems to have been created for essentially genealogical value, from what I can tell. The sources lead to a few genealogical books but don't have his name in the search criteria or snippet. CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. A reasonable search for online sources finds nothing but false positives, mirrors and genealogical sources. Fails GNG and BASIC. The subject is verifiable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD ( talk) 05:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mission Rabies

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

Written like an advert, no encyclopaedic content. The only source that isn't its own website is like an advert as well. Dark Sun ( talk) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. A notable project to fight a major wildlife disease in a major country; not sure about the notability of the organizations behind it but that is not at issue here. Here is just some of the significant independent coverage this has received: National Geographic, New Indian Express, Animal People News, BBC News, The Journal of the British Veterinary Association, ... I'll stop now. Ivanvector ( talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep The article needs to be expanded, but that's not a reason for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, after all. In addition to the sources Ivanvector found, a simple Google search also turns up articles from The Times of India. Novusuna ^talk 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH per [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (subscription required). Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Snow Keep The National Geographic link alone should put this beyond reasonable doubt as a keep. The Times of India and the New Indian Express put it beyond all reasonable doubt. And I only didn't list the BBC because I've not watched the link. Yes, the article needs a cleanup - but it doesn't belong on the deletion request page. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:12, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dave VanHoose

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

Non-notable speaker. All sources listed are from sites advertising his services. I made a google search and was unable to find any articles about him from neutral sources. LionMans Account ( talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete The reliable sources include Forbes, Tampa Bay Times and Tampa Bay Business Journal. The Tampa Bay Times article is pretty unflattering, painting a picture of a huckster living the high life and defaulting on debts. In any case I don't think these sources alone can justify an article and if they did it would mainly be about his business failures. The books are non notable and while there is one positive comment in Forbes it's not by a journalist more of an opinion piece. I think Mr. VanHoose would be better off without a Wikipedia article at this point. -- GreenC 08:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete I think that's a Forbes.com blog - rather less notable than the Forbes name indicates. I think we're operating under wp:BLP and in specific wp:NPF here. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures". I'm leaning towards him being borderline notable at best and with the BLP issues combining for a delete. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete per everybody else, including the nominator. They may seem like good sources, but I don't think they are reliable though. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 17:14, 25 December 2013 (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. Copyright infringement Yunshui 雲‍ 水 13:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Alex Miranda

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

Non-notable actor/film industry personality. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. The only possible claim to notability is the winning of the 1998 ALMA Award, but he was one of 26 people to win in his category that year, and received no notice other than his name in the award program itself. Other citations refer to some notes from his college newspaper and alumni magazine. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete: no sign of notability. Note that the only content of the article has been contributed by a single user, whose only edits these have been, and who shares the subject's initials and generation number. Possible autobiography? Pam D 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Currently fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT, nothing notable in the pipeline either.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete Copyright Infringement from the IMDB profile. I've marked the page accordingly. Also Delete - non-notable. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:27, 20 December 2013 (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 by User:DGG ~ Amatulić ( talk) 04:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Wine Index

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

Declined PROD. Very new (2013) wine shop. Only source I can find on it is their own website and the likes of facebook/linkedin. Makes no strong case to notability other than "has grown to attract buyers from around the world". Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Chris857 ( talk) 16:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, and has been so tagged. Note that the PROD was not declined by an administrator, but that the PROD tag was removed by the SPA article creator. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:45, 19 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of O Scanu awards

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

Lady Lotus • talk 16:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete - There is no argument from the Afd nominator but having looked at this I think it falls under WP:G3. "List of" implies that there is more then one, and there is not. "O Scanu" nothing that I can find were this name (?) is indicated as notable or exists for this artical. "Award" is indicated as "Won: Best Actor, Connect Spring Film Group (2011)" which does not exist. - Pmedema ( talk) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. A couple of minutes of detective work lead me to conclude that this article relates to an actor named Omar Scanu, sometimes credited as "O. Scanu". His IMDb listing shows 13 credits, but otherwise I could find no sources to indicate notability for this actor -- and certainly not for a separate article about his one, apparently non-notable award. So I don't think this qualifies for speedy under G3 (it's not a hoax) or A7 (there's some indication of importance given the multiple credits and the award) but even if we were to convert this to a bio article, it certainly looks like it fails the notability test.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete - non-notable one-item list of a non-notable person.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - a list with only one entry fails WP:LIST and WP:DAB. Bearian ( talk) 18:10, 20 December 2013 (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 all excluding James Megellas, Zachary Rhyner and John Shuman. The last two can be nominated separately per Lankiveil's request. Megellas' status was that there was a consensus to keep.

I understand why this was done as a group nomination in this circumstance, but I can also understand the argument that sometimes one or two good 'babies' get thrown out with the proverbial bathwater. In this situation, though, per Lankiveil's comments, I think the probability is unlikely. If anyone wants to contest a singular one of these on a notability point of difference other than the medal, please ping me on my talk page and I'm open to undeleting that one article out of the batch and letting you have a go at improving it (at my discretion). Otherwise, the argument that being a medal recipient at this level alone is not notable enough independent of other notability claims is upheld in this discussion and hence the articles deleted. Daniel ( talk) 07:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Maurice Amundson

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

Time to knock these articles on the head en masse once and for all. They are all about people whose only claim to notability is winning a single second-level gallantry decoration (sometimes not even that), contrary to WP:SOLDIER, which says that without another good reason for notability it requires at least two second-level decorations for an individual to be regarded as notable. For the most part, these articles consist of little more than the award citation, and those which do contain more information do not contain anything to establish notability. They were all created by the same editor and all are about people who hailed from Wisconsin. This isn't to take away anything from the gallantry of these men, but WP:SOLDIER, although not an official guideline, is widely accepted and for good reason. It has been widely applied and there's no reason to make an exception for any of these gentlemen.

A couple also have a third level or lower gallantry decoration, but that makes no difference to the notability requirements. A few ( Edgar Colladay, Lester Mykel Conger, Ronald C. Prei, John Shuman, Christian J. Vogt) didn't even receive a second-level decoration, but only a third- or lower level decoration. In the interests of fairness, I should highlight three for whom greater claims of notability have been made: James Megellas is said to have been "the most-decorated officer in the history of the 82nd Airborne Division" (I don't personally think that the most decorated officer of a particular formation is notable), but still only received a DSC, a Silver Star and a nomination for the Medal of Honor (nominations don't count - many people have been nominated for the highest honour and received a lower honour). Zachary Rhyner is said to be " the first living, and second ever, Combat Controller to receive the Air Force Cross", which I don't see is particularly relevant: the first person in a particular specialisation to win an award may possibly be notable (and may not be); the second person is not. John Shuman was only awarded the DSM, but was a colonel and seems to have been a senior staff officer, although not of general officer rank. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - I picked a couple at random, and my first impression is that a lack of sourcing is a reason to propose deletion. That and that the entries are stubs built around the specific citation. That said, WP:Soldier is a guidance that that only the highest level awards are likely to be notable of themselves, due to the sourcing that is expected to be found. I emphasize those words because if one of theses individuals has been extensively written about - just for that award-earning incident alone - then they would pass GNG and warrant an article. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Having read all the articles, I think it's highly unlikely that any of them will have been written about beyond the usual local/genealogical/memorial stuff that usually appears in the "local boy makes good" mould, which is not really sufficient for notability (if it is then we can assume that any American serviceman decorated or killed since the internet started is going to be notable, which they're clearly not and would make a mockery of Wikipedia's goal to be an encyclopaedia instead of a memorial). James Megellas is a possible exception. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Agree with the exclusion - James Megellas has a Medal of Honour. (I've already voted delete for the rest). Neonchameleon ( talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, he doesn't have a Medal of Honor. If he did I wouldn't have nominated him for deletion! He's been nominated for one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

My bad, sorry. There's still enough there that I'm keeping him as an exclusion to the delete listing. Neonchameleon ( talk) 17:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete I've checked a dozen of them. None appear notable beyond the award listing. I believe that a number of the individuals could be notable, but none of them have demonstrated they are. So I'm going for block deletion. Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - I've looked at half a dozen at random. They seem to be rote creations of second-level award recipients. While only an essay, I'm okay with the take of the military history project that special notability derives from multiple second-level awards. I don't like lists of nominations that are this long, it's not really possible to check them individually without investing an hour that nobody has, but I trust the nominator's word that these are peas from the same pod. Fails GNG, fails to meet informal SNG consensus. Carrite ( talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Strongly object to bundling of nominations - please list separately. This is judging people by medal or rank, and not by coverage. My sense is that some of these should be kept. The idea that you either have to be a general or be awarded a Medal of Honor and there's a line drawn under this which Gandalf stands and shouts "They shall not pass" regardless of how much coverage there is is plainly ridiculous. One is intrigued at how the Wikiproject cricket guys are inclusionist to the point where they keep anyone whose ever played 1st class cricket, thus including a heck of a lot of barely notable people, and yet the military guys are so deletionist that they will vote to delete articles on people with coverage elsewhere. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 10:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete except James Megellas. The other ones that I checked were all cookie cutter articles that have almost no content. They should be deleted because they don't meet WP:GN and are lacking multiple reliable sources. Megallas' article has the sourcing to prove why he should have an article. Royal broil 03:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete all except James Megellas, Zachary Rhyner and John Shuman, which should be listed and discussed separately. Remaining biographies are of people who did their duty and did a good job it seems, but do not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC). reply
Comment - I am fine with the Keep on James Megellas — as a memoirist he may well be in a different category. Carrite ( talk) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (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. A tragic and sad case, but WP:NOTNEWS seems to apply. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Recreate once we have solid reliable sources that are independent of the subject; all sources right now are necessarily chronologically close to the subject. Nyttend ( talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep - per me being the creator. And the fact that WP:NOTNEWS is a hollow guideline considering that most Wikipedia article are based on news and news media sources. It is a highly covered story. And frankly I think the AfD nominator needs to give a better explanation than NOTNEWS for deletion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- The point is that many of our articles shouldn't exist. We have Wikinews for a reason, and that's where pages should go when they're not based on time-independent sources. We are an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are based on stable sources. Nyttend ( talk) 04:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - Wikinews has been a "dead project" since the start with very few updates or use. Just saying. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - I haven't been following the case closely, so don't know many of the details, but maybe we should mothball this article and wait until any legal proceedings are over. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Incubate - I don't want to be heartless but this news story is repeated hundreds of times a year around the world and is not unique with lasting effects. As such, it should be incubated and can be re-created if something moves it into the notable catagory. If I may also say that WP:NOTNEWS is part of WP:NOT and that is a policy, not a "hollow" guideline.
Delete-Incubate - as above. I wish it were not true, but unless there is something unique situationally, sociological, or scientific/procedural with the case-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Not news. Very tragic indeed (I work in Didcot, there right now as a matter of fact) but not worthy of an article. If it does in the future, then incubate. Somchai Sun ( talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per Loriendrew — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 02:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep. The sources seem to indicate notability. Everyking ( talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Daniel Verkerke

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. All successes, honors, awards and belt certificates listed seem to have no more notability than perhaps from a belt mill. "During the 1990s, he was introduced to Grandmaster Dr. Dan McEaddy and he began studying Angelic Ninjutsu. In 1994, he had completed all of the requirements for a 9th degree Black belt, and was promoted by Dr. Dan McEaddy." 9th degree? It takes more than 40 years if you're really good for such a degree in established martial arts. -- Razionale ( talk) 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strong Delete I am surprised that this article survived this long perhaps because it remained uncategorized. All the awards are from notorious self-congrat organizations of no notability. It is a good example of the worst of the neo-ninjas. No notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete interesting list of awards he's been awarded. I agree with Razionale and PRhese that that looks like a belt mill. Anyone surprised when I point out most of the page was made by an SPA only minor edits since? Didn't think so. Neonchameleon ( talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (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. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Vilomix

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

Just another commercial enterprise. No depth of coverage outside its own website, and business directories. Shirt58 ( talk) 11:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nomination. No depth of coverage, and no assertion of Notability Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: a redirect to the related Vilofoss might be appropriate, but that article is itself at WP:PROD. AllyD ( talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: There is a related article on the German Wikipedia: [23] but despite a picture gallery of factories, it lacks references. Searches are turning up no more than a couple of passing mentions. A firm going about its business, but it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD ( talk) 13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
comment I speedy deleted the thing. I did not see it as meeting WP:GNG. A redirect to Viofloss is not, in my opinion, a good choice. Dloh cierekim 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I am afraid you have to review WP:CSD: GNG is irrelevant there. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

To clarify. It met CSD and was once deleted there under. Still don't see it meeting WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment It still appears to be there? Neonchameleon ( talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Nope. More than one article reviewer has tagged it for a7. With all the energetic assertion, there is as yet no backing by reliable sources Dloh cierekim 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

merge/redirect to parent (which I de-prodded) until fleshed out. A verifiable multibillion company. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, the verifiability is lacking as there are no verifiable 3rd party reliable sources in the article. If there were we would not be here. Search turned up empty, and the one source is not independent. Dloh cierekim 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete, see my commentary on this page I was waiting for the introduction of significant coverage that would meet the WP:GNG. Still waiting. One would expect some coverage for a multi-billion dollar multi national company. Dloh cierekim 21:57, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Ennaji

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

Not notable as either scientist or martial artist. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - does not meet WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:SPORTCRIT-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Unreferenced biography about someone who doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa ( talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Does not seem to meet notability criteria. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys election, 2003

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

How are local or regional school board elections notable? These have received no coverage apart from some routine announcements. Being an election is in itself not sufficient to be considered a notable event. Fram ( talk) 10:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Also nominated are all other articles in Category:School trustee elections in Quebec:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete all Can't see how a school board election can be sufficiently notable for an article. If it's really relevant then it can be included in the school board's article. Number 5 7 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete all, local coverage only as far as I can see. A school board election might be notable if there were some unusual feature that gained attention outside of the immediate area, but that doesn't seem to be the case with these elections. No objection to userification to host this material in an external archive if someone wants to. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:53, 27 December 2013 (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 Quebec Autoroute 40; if there's any content to be merged, it can be done from behind the redirect. Daniel ( talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Décarie Interchange

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

No reasoning or sources provided to give any indication as to the importance of this interchange. WP:HWY generally does not cover interchanges unless they garner very significant local or some non-local coverage. Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Question Any chance that we could redirect it to one of the highway articles? Presumably there's some local coverage that we could use to add coverage to the highway article in question. Nyttend ( talk) 15:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

We could, but which of the three (A-15, A-40 or Route 117) should it be put on? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

My guess, based on the name of the interchange, is A-40— which is also, based on the relevant articles, obviously the most important route at that interchange. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I've cleaned up A-40 to fit the info, but I can't figure out a good way to word it so that it isn't undue weight. However, I am in support of a merge. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Merge to Quebec Autoroute 40, per the discussion above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Maria Simões de Melo

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

The article seems to have been created for essentially genealogical value, from what I can tell - this person is just listed in some genealogical books (cannot find her name, though, in the snipets) and doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The article seems to have been created for essentially genealogical value, from what I can tell - this person is just listed in some genealogical books (snipets so hard to tell if she's in all of them) and doesn't appear to be particularly notable. I did some searching on the web and couldn't find anything additive. CaroleHenson ( talk) 07:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. A reasonable search for online sources finds nothing reliable. Fails GNG and BASIC. The subject is verifiable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD ( talk) 05:16, 23 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Matias Nunes Cabral

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

The article seems to have been created for essentially genealogical value, from what I can tell - this person is just listed in some genealogical books (snipets so hard to tell if he's in all of them) and doesn't appear to be particularly notable. I did some searching on the web and couldn't find anything additive. CaroleHenson ( talk) 07:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. A reasonable search for online sources finds nothing but mirrors and genealogical sources. Fails GNG and BASIC. The subject is verifiable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BusterD ( talk) 05:17, 23 December 2013 (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. Clearly there is no wide consensus to delete this article. I would suggest that solving the underlying dispute through respectful dialogue and potentially mediation would be a better use of the participants time than taking articles to AFD. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mark Thornton

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

Fails to meet all of the general criteria for notability outlined at WP:GNG and the specific criteria of WP:Academic. There is one independent, mainstream RS that discusses his views and research at length ( Agence France-Press), but this is a news article (not academic), and only one such article is insufficient. Virtually all of the citations come from fringe libertarian sources (E.G. the Mises Institute, Independent Institute, and Cato Institute) with whom he is associated. (Cato arguably is mainstream, but is still not independent of Thornton, which is required for its discussion of him to be considered for notability.) Steeletrap ( talk) 18:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 10. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - Thornton doesn't meet the tests for a notable academic. Publishers don't pass muster and his work has not been cited or discussed by mainstream or unaffiliated sources. SPECIFICO talk 05:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. Obviously the article needs beefing up. I just added here - Talk:Mark_Thornton - a number of links to refs I found in a short search including a new Thornton book and a chapter in another new book; substantive mentions in Washington Times, NPR interview, Irish Times, “Regulation” journal (Cato Institute), Intnl Herald Tribune, Associated press, Christian Science Monitor; his articles in “Public Choice” journal, Social Science Quarterly, Journal of Drug Issues, "Public Choice” journal, etc. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The "skyscraper theory" is a pop-curiosity observation, a casual observation which is not stated in terms which are predictive or could be considered a testable academic theory. It's punditry at best. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note that I will try to add material if article kept and we can debate notability etc. of material at that time. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 15:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment On the citation issue, I note that his book The economics of prohibition has apparently been cited 172 times, including in the Columbian Law Review and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.- ManicSpider ( talk) 11:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I know citations can be used at AfDs though haven't mentioned lately just because I was unclear if they also can be used in an article. Thanks for reminding me to use such numbers at AfDs anyway. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep – Sources ( Cato Institute, Barron's) are sufficient, and describing them as "fringe" does not help. ManicSpider has shown Prohibition is significant. This AfD, expressing a desire for mainstream only sourcing, indicates tunnel vision and WP:OVERZEALOUSness. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rich, please focus on content, not contributors. What benefit is there to disparaging my motives? Steeletrap ( talk) 20:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It's perfectly acceptable to note that an idea expressed by an editor is problematic for various reasons, including the editor's tunnel vision view that one can never use sources they personally consider fringe or ther peculiar view that just because an Institute published a few articles by an individual that all their writers and editors are henceforth incapable of writing or publishing anything about them that is not filled with idolatry. Also, why would Wikipedia have an essay like Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion if not to clue people in to possible motives for deleting an article? If you think such essays are a problem, AfD them and see what the community thinks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. Thornton's book Prohibition has been cited many times including articles in Columbia Law Review [24], Administrative Science Quarterly [25], American Law and Economics Review, Economic Policy [26], Journal of Economic Psychology [27], and by authors published by Woodrow Wilson Center Press [28], Routledge [29], NYU Press [30], and Psychology Press [31]. The book is important enough to bring Thornton into notability. Binksternet ( talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete - Thornton is too minor for there to be enough independent sources to turn this article into more than the stub. He's not particularly notable in his primary field. MilesMoney ( talk) 05:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete (OP) - For academics, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is required for notablity. While we have found a number of RS that mention Thornton's work in a cursory fashion, we haven't provided any evidence that his work was anything other than a blip on the radar; i.e., that it "significantly" impacted mainstrem economics. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete; Thornton does not appear to be notable; Steeletrap puts it better than I ever could. "Prohibition" may have more notability, but Thornton does not inherit that notability. bobrayner ( talk) 17:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep As it is generally agreed that his work is notable, this establishes his notability. This is where his work is covered. It's a strange argument that his work is notable and influential but that he himself isn't. Say what? He is notable for his work. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 18:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment – Agreed. I think the not inherited comment is a misapplication. Someone who is associated with a notable institution may not inherit the notability. But Thornton's work on the Prohibition is more than an association. He's produced a work that has lots of usefulness as per the number of citations. Another factor, related to his field and associates, is WP:OBSCURE. The Sekai Mumei Senshi no Haka is a rather obscure monument, of interest to, shall we say, a "fringe group" of {{ WikiProject Death}} enthusiasts. But it has sufficient notability, as does Thornton. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Srich32977: - Please address the quality, not the quantity of citations. On what basis do you assert that it's a noteworthy contribution? SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTINHERITED says:

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable.

Looks relevant to me. "Prohibition" may well be notable, but that does not make its writer notable. bobrayner ( talk) 20:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

So you are arguing to move the article to The Economics of Prohibition? Interesting alternative. Binksternet ( talk) 20:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I have redirectted to book title to the author's page. THornton didn't give birth to the book and it's not his subordinate, he's the book's author. The article covers him and his work, which we have concluded is notable. No need to split hairs. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Candle, I think you are jumping the gun with that redirect. I don't see how that is consistent with the current state of this thread. Please consider undoing that until we have discussed the matter more fully and explicitly. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Really now. Where do you think the redirect should point? It has to point somewhere, now that it is created. Candleabracadabra is not an administrator who would be able to delete it.

It is perfectly legitimate to continue to develop an article while it is being discussed for deletion. Candleabracadabra has done nothing wrong. Binksternet ( talk) 21:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I didn't say he did anything "wrong" -- I said that we've not yet reached consensus, for example as to the notability of the book. Please read my words again. You are an experienced hand on WP. You know better than to misrepresent my words, and you should strike yourself through. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Candleabracadabra, which part of the notability guideline says that sources discussing one topic actually count towards the notability of a different, related topic? As far as I can tell, the GNG says no such thing. Can you explain? bobrayner ( talk) 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bobbrayner. Per WP:PROF criterias, academics are considered notable if their work has had significant impact, they have received a prestigious award or similar. There are many prominent academics that are not well covered in sources qua persons. Iselilja ( talk) 22:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Which of the criteria in WP:PROF do you feel are satisfied by Thornton? bobrayner ( talk) 23:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I haven’t said anything about Thornton; just replying to your comment and pointing out that per WP:PROF an academic will be notable if his work is notable/influential. You indicated yourself above, that "Prohibition" might be notable. If it really is notable in a qualified way, it would indicate that Thornton was too; but you may have used the word "notable" about the book in a weaker sense. Iselilja ( talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This is an AfD of Mark Thornton. Mark Thornton does not meet the criteria in either the WP:GNG or WP:PROF; so how on earth is it helpful to speculate that notability could be inherited in some way, when the actual rules say no such thing in Thornton's case? bobrayner ( talk) 15:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

While I have shown Thornton to be notable per WP:GNG, the PROF requirement is filled by Thornton having held the O.P. Alford III chair at Auburn University. [32] This is from the Econ Journal Watch website which is run by academics. Binksternet ( talk) 15:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Correction of Bink User:Binksternet, you can't keep making egregious mistakes and expect to maintain credibility. The "chair" you speak of is, according to the C.V. of another professor to have been awarded it, ~~Thornton's own CV~~, is a cash prize from the Mises Institute that had nothing to do with Auburn University. (A Google search confirms that no such "chair" exists only at LvMI and not Auburn.) The website you used -- in a fashion contrary to policy, since it's not an RS -- was mistaken, but you should have known an adjunct professor was not likely to actually hold a chair. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

?? Link goes to William N. Butos. (Not an egregious error, but can you supply another one?) Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for correcting my (insubstantial) error. The difference (why it is not "egregious") is that the error doesn't affect my actual point, which is that the chair has nothing to do with Auburn University. Steeletrap ( talk) 05:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Upon further analysis, it appears that the chair has been described in a highly misleading fashion in articles written by Thornton. For instance, here he is characterized as "the O.P. Alford III Chair of the Ludwig von Mises Institute at Auburn University." This technically true but substantively deceptive characterization (LvMI rented space on Auburn U's campus, but the 'chair' was endowed by LvMI and had nothing whatsoever to do with Auburn U) could easily hoodwink the less astute observer (and appears to have fooled a couple web pages). Steeletrap ( talk) 05:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Heartland article was written in 1999, around the time LvMI moved to its own facility. So, really, use of that article is a verifiability issue. (As for renting space on Auburn U, that sounds like OR.) The focus on in this discussion should be on notability. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Do you really believe what you're saying? The article is an RS journal article written personally by Thornton; it clearly states that the chair is from the Mises Institute, and (just as clearly) states that LvMI is "at" Auburn. No OR is needed, unless you consider reading and understanding the objective meaning of terms (such as "at") original research. Steeletrap ( talk) 06:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

More sources which bring notability.

Book Review: 'The Economics of Prohibition', in the Michigan Journal of Economics, written by Katherine Grace Carman who is now a RAND economist
Legalising Drugs: Debates and Dilemmas by Philip Bean, Emeritus Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Loughborough. The academic book is published by Policy Press. Bean devotes multiple paragraphs to Thornton's ideas, on pages 18–20 and 95–97. Thornton is cited on pages 6, 23, 38, 101, 124 and 135. The Thornton work which Bean refers to is not The Economics of Prohibition but "Perfect Drug Legalisation", a chapter found within the 1998 Jefferson M. Fish book How to Legalise Drugs ISBN 0765701510.
The above material should end the discussion here, bringing the matter to a 'keep' conclusion. Binksternet ( talk) 22:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bink, Michigan Journal of Economics is an undergraduate publication - you're citing a paper by a college junior. What's more the reviewer says Thornton fails to provide adequate treatment of the economic issues he purports to address. Could you please take the extra step next time and CLICK after you google? Notability is not established, and it is necessary for us to address the many concerns enumerated by editors on this page. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Someone citing Thornton does not have to praise him for the cite to have importance here at this AFD discussion. You picked on the K.G. Carman paper because it had some apparent flaw you could pry on, but I notice that you have not picked on the Philip Bean book, which seals Thornton's notability. Binksternet ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bink, you surprise me. You're a technician. I'd expect you to know that it takes only a single flaw to invalidate the chain. I started at the top of your list and stopped once it was clear to me that you'd not checked before posting. Not a "pick" in sight. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, there's no "chain" here; each source stands alone. Yopienso ( talk) 05:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The "chain" relates to the credibility of Bink's words here. Maybe "train" is better than "chain" == Bink is an engineer. Anyway, when I start at the top of the list and it's nonsense, why am I motivated to continue down the path? If the editor who puts this stuff up hasn't checked it, why on God's Green Earth would anyone else waste their time checking it for him. I hope that's more clear. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If you still don't have anything bad to say about Philip Bean then I think we're done here. The Bean book settles the matter. Binksternet ( talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

More stuff can be seen at the Iron law of prohibition page, with multiple authors citing Thornton's thoughts about drug legalization. Binksternet ( talk) 00:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mosher, Clayton J.; Akins, Scott (2007). Drugs and Drug Policy: The Control of Consciousness Alteration. SAGE. pp. 308–309. ISBN 0761930078.
Levinson, David (2002). Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. SAGE. p. 561. ISBN 076192258X.
Mendelson, Richard (2009). From Demon to Darling: A Legal History of Wine in America. University of California Press. pp. 50–51, 204. ISBN 0520259432. According to Mark Thornton, the Prohibition Party was the manifestation of the politicization of temperance...
Bruce L. Benson (2008). "Illicit Drugs". In Ronald Hamowy, Cato Institute (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE. pp. 185, 188, 198, 210. ISBN 1412965802. (Citing Thornton's "Alcohol Prohibition was a Failure", a Cato Policy Analysis paper from 1991.)

FYI, just found his 11 page Curriculum Vitae/Resume circa 2010 which provides lots more information that can be sourced and of course generally is itself a good source, if no extraordinary and unbelievable claims are made. Also found an interview in the Harvard students politics publication. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 05:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep--The man is obviously notable as a libertarian economist and author. See Binksternet's 8 refs from 17:39, 19 December 2013 and the Philip Bean book. Yopienso ( talk) 05:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Strong keep per Carolmooredc and Srich32977, above. Sources are abundant and the subject's work has been cited often by others. Just the coverage by NPR and Barron's should be enough to kick the legs out from under this already-shaky AfD. Roccodrift ( talk) 10:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't intend to !vote here, as I don't have time to go through all the links posted here. However, I read the discussion and I have to say that some of the arguments given here are completely misunderstanding WP:ACADEMIC. Whether or not a reference is positive about an author or his book has no bearing on notability. Something can be notable for being wrong, for example. One book devoting some paragraphs to another book/author does not seal notability. Academics cite each other all the time, that is nothing special. Only if there was, for example, a whole book about someone's ideas, that would really seal notability. A handful of citations does not meet ACADEMIC#1 either. We generally require at least hundreds of citations and a sizable h-index before mere citations are taken to establish notability. In a high-citation density field like economics, I would expect at least a thousand citations (or several articles/books with more than 100 citations each) and an h-index of at least 15. Of course, WP:GNG trumps all, so if someone can find a few in-depth sources on a person (not an interview on a student blog), that would clinch the deal, too. Hope this helps your discussion a bit. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your helpful comments. I do believe the threshold is lower than "a thousand citations," since WP doesn't cover only well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners. The sad fact, when it comes to BLPs in climatology, is that inclusion depends on who a small group of editors like. Tim Ball, for example, was deleted, even though Mike Mann saw him significant enough to bring suit against him, while William Connolley has an article for no apparent reason. Yopienso ( talk) 18:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

You're joking. Comparing "over 1000 citations" with "well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners" is ridiculous. Let me be frank: when I evaluate someone for a professor position, someone with less than a 1000 citations may be competitive for an assistant professorship, exceptionally associate, but certainly not "full" (except for small, less prestigious universities). Personally, I don't think that in an area like this, nobody under 2000 citations should be regarded as notable, but that is not the consensus generally and people usually think that 1000 citations is enough. Search for some Nobel Prize winners on Google Scholar and you'll see that they usually have several papers that individually have been cited more than 1000 times. So 1000 citations certainly includes a bit more than "well-known personalities or Nobel Prize winners"... -- Randykitty ( talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

[Insert - since I'm going out of order with the post below]: Randykitty, it sounds like you hire and fire professors. If that's true, please step away from your "job" and look at this from the standpoint of a general interest encycolopedia not a "Whos Whos" or whatever. If that's not your job, you might make your point a little clearer. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Why do I need to "step back from my job"? because that means I know what I am talking about? -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, Randykitty, I'm not joking. At my institution, few professors have that many citations. This visiting professor in an endowed chair, following a Nobel laureate who does have thousands of citations, has 1267 citations since 1999.

I am striking my additional comments, however, as not germane; I'd been watching a discussion on Michael E. Mann and somehow inserted climate scientists into an article on an economist. Yopienso ( talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

"Step back from your job" means that if the criteria for hiring a professor are far more stringent than those of notability on Wikipedia, you go by Wikipedia standards, not your job standards. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, I see. You mean that someone who wouldn't be hired at a low level professorship is still notable and we should create an article for each and every professor. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, but hundreds of bios already exist of individuals who are not full profs, or whose academic notability is not as high as other notability. I'm not a deletionist myself, though I will mention possibility of deletion to encourage beefing up articles that need it. I mean if some prof has a bio with hardly any refs, and a listing of journal articles whose import most readers would not know, why should theirs be kept when a prof with lots of outside refs to their ideas/work be automatically knocked off because anonymous editors who claim that they know who is important and who isn't make such claims? (I'm talking about achievements, not obscure comments nitpicked by partisans and used as an excuse to keep the article.) It just seems very silly to me. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Carolmooredc:, you are denying that we should adhere to WP policy, and you claim WP:OTHERSTUFF as your rationale. This pig won't quack. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Strawmen don't quack either. I don't claim Amazon bios as currently written should be used in Wikipedia and I don't claim we shouldn't adhere to policy, just note individuals should not let their own professional opinions on what is notable carry more weight than Wikipedia policy. Please read more carefully. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

There's no doubt that intellectual diversity is another issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

More sources that incrementally add to Thornton's notability. Binksternet ( talk) 04:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

" US drinks to 75 years since end of Prohibition", AFP news item which repeatedly quotes Thornton on the topic of Prohibition
" How Prohibition Made Pot More Potent: Q&A with Auburn University's Mark Thornton", Reason magazine video short subject about the iron law of prohibition and increased marijuana potency.
The Center for Media and Democracy hosts a biography page about Thornton, written with an emphasis on his pro-tobacco stance. They have some Thornton-authored documents that were found in tobacco company files, including op/ed pieces he co-wrote with Robert B. Ekelund, Jr, which were published in Georgia newspapers.
" "An Analysis Of The Effects Of Prohibition Of Tobacco By Excessive Taxation", in Information Liberation. Thornton is heavily quoted regarding the negative effects of tobacco taxes.
" To Set the Record Straight on Recessions", The Libertarian, UK. Thornton is heavily cited about his views on economic depression.

This attempt to bolster Thornton's credibility is frankly incompetent. The first of the links Bink provides is already in the article and was acknowledged by me in the first paragraph to the AfD (did Bink even look up to see what AFP stood for?). The fourth and fifth link are totally unreliable sources, the third one is highly questionable, and the second is a popular media article that has nothing to do with establishing notability for an academic.

Bink: Did you actually read any of the articles or was this the product of another hasty Googling? I don't think you did read it; what are we going to do with you, Mister? Steeletrap ( talk) 04:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Binksternet: - What is the content you propose to verify with each source, and why do you believe that the chosen reference is RS for that content. I've taken a quick look and I don't see anything there. The Agence France is already in the article and is really neither RS nor noteworthy. It's simply an interview, primary source. I don't see that your list gives us any RS material with which to improve the article. Things are looking very discouraging indeed. SPECIFICO talk 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Steeletrap, I listed the AFP article here because Specifico had just deleted it from the biography. I think it shows Thornton's media visibility. Specifico, the Thornton biography put together by the Center for Media and Democracy is from an award-winning group of investigative journalists, so its reliability is good. It also shows that this group of journalists considers Thornton worthy of attention, to the point of writing a biography. You may be writing that "things are looking discouraging" but I doubt you believe it; you have not been trying to keep the article but instead have been working very hard to get it deleted. Binksternet ( talk) 06:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear Bink: I think the fact that you were unable to find any more than that one no-byline filler piece on American prohibition, written by an alien stringer, proves conclusively that Thornton has zero mainstream news recognition on this subject. Such notability is rarely a close call or a stretch. As to academic notability, others have, applied the objective tools and standards discussed elsewhere in this AfD. Here's Thornton's "media visibility" per your friends at Google: [33] I'd guess that many of the editors on this thread have more press clippings than Thornton. We all get these press calls from time to time. Please review the AfD and notability criteria and try to address the specific requirements for content which would be needed to rescue this article for WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes, you still cannot counter Philip Bean's enthusiasm for Thornton. You have said here that you have not examined all the references I have brought forward. When you can do that, feel free to contribute. Binksternet ( talk) 16:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Bink Man's Burden SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: This discussion seemed to be taking a personal turn, so I looked at the editors' talk pages and found this is merely an extension of ongoing strife. User talk:Steeletrap's page has the greatest number of negative comments on one page. Yopienso ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: See Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions for official details. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 17:32, 22 December 2013 (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. Daniel ( talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Shatin.com

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

The only reliable sources are from Trend Micro and Microsoft, which are not mentione in the body of the article, also, the only other source is a YouTube video, which I would not think is not reliable. Doing a google search [34] returns few results about the topic The ChampionMan 1234 06:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. The only sources seem to be highly-specialized computer-virus databases. I'm not convinced it makes sense to copy all that type of info into Wikipedia. I'd expect some kind of press coverage, even in the specialized computer press, before I'd consider a computer virus notable. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete, sources appear to be directory lists of computer viruses rather than substantial discussions of the topic. Does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Raimo Kilpiö trophy

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

A google search for the title returns mostly mirrors or copies of Wikipedia [35] The ChampionMan 1234 05:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep A major award for one of the top leagues in the world. Being that it is a Finish league you aren't likely to find many English references to it. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep: It's scarcely any surprise that a search term of "Raimo" + "Kilpio" + "trophy," run off of the Australian Google, wouldn't turn up much. Did the nom ever consider running the Finnish term, off of Google Advanced Search, for "Raimo Kilpiö -palkinto?" That turns up over 40,000 hits. [36] Ravenswing 13:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Per Djsasso and Ravenswing. -- Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment I've asked for additional input from User:JIP, a native Finnish speaker, to evaluate some of the sources Ravenswing found and say if they meet WP:RS. Nyttend ( talk) 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- The Google search that was linked returned quite few sources I'd consider reliable, but it did find some, most prominently MTV3, YLE, the official sites of Ilves and Tappara, and to a lesser extent, Liiga.fi, which seems to be some sort of prominent ice hockey site. It also found the Finnish Wikipedia, which is often reliable but can't be used as a source for Wikipedia itself, Jatkoaika.com, which is a sports discussion forum and can't be considered reliable, Suomi24, which is a general discussion forum and is among the least reliable and least respected sites in Finland (many Finns consider its discussions as utter trash), and Wikipedia mirror sites mindlessly copying anything that is written to Wikipedia. Those sources I don't consider reliable. JIP | Talk 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - liiga.fi is the official website of the Liiga, Finland's top hockey league - though I see the current design does look somewhat amateurish. Here is the page you are likely referring to, which notes the winners. As such, my !vote is Keep. Reso lute 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - Since we need only two reliable sources to satisfy the GNG, that would do it. Ravenswing 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep. Per above. Patken4 ( talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC) reply

WotWentWrong

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

Service no longer exists. As well, page seems inherently promotional and of little value to an encyclopedia. Does not appear to have been a major service. Coldzonecrazy ( talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

~~I'm neutral about notability,~~ but I think I should alert the nominator that notability is not temporary. Also, I find it rather peculiar that an editor's very first contribution is an AfD nomination. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Changing my !vote to keep; although the article can stand a rewrite, I can still identify enough significant coverage. I also noticed that the original creator was never notified of this discussion, so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep Sufficient secondary sources and depth of coverage to prove notability. -- Drm310 ( talk) 06:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Source examples include: ABC News, Huffington Post, Reuters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 20 December 2013 (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. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rob Barnett

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

The article as I found it was clearly a fluff biography and relied entirely on primary sources. In fact, the only citation that's there now is one I found while editing My Damn Channel. Subject is not notable for anything except founding My Damn Channel. Jorm ( talk) 04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Redirect or soft Delete - There's some value in redirecting this over the top of My Damn Channel. Unlikely to be valuable, but it'l probably end up getting created anyway. -- rm 'w a vu 05:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Poorly referenced and not notable. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 14:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:28, 21 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Next Nature

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable book. Worldcat shows only 52 copies in libraries. No adequate reviews--the SAmer "review" is actually a guest blog posting, and their book blog postings seem not to be consistently unreliable. The reviewer does not appear to be an established authority. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete Has peripheral coverage but nothing like multiple reviews in a reliable source. -- GreenC 06:51, 20 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Chika Onyenezi

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines, but perhaps there are reliable secondary sources out there that exist that I'm unable to find. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: I removed a substantial WP:COPYVIO of this page. AllyD ( talk) 08:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete: The sources in the article fall short of being reliable 3rd party sources and multiple searches have turned up nothing beyond the online interview that I added as an External Link. No reason to overturn the April 2011 AfD conclusion; the subject fails WP:AUTHOR. AllyD ( talk) 08:40, 19 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Power IC (nokia mobile)

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

Wikipedia is not a maintenance or repair guide. While it is useful for an encyclopedia to have a general article on Power ICs, it is not useful to have one on the specific use of such a device in one manufacturer's phone device, with instructions on what the device does within that device. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. We already have a page on Power ICs, and Nokia's implementation doesn't appear to be separately notable. The page also doesn't explain how it's specific to Nokia. Redundant. Ivanvector ( talk) 03:37, 19 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Truth About Lies

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NALBUM. It's suggestive (though not necessarily conclusive) that none of this musician's other albums have articles. -- BDD ( talk) 19:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

My preferred outcome here would be moving to The Truth About Lies (album), redirecting that to Christian Ingebrigtsen, and moving The Truth About Lies (film) to the base title. -- BDD ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Christian Ingebrigtsen. Does not pass notability guidelines for it to have it's own article. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Christian Ingebrigtsen#Discography, as there's insufficient depth of coverage, it fails to meet WP:NALBUM and GNG. Could serve as a redirect. Alex^{discussion
★} 13:58, 19 December 2013 (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. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 01:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Chris christman

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

A well-employed, but not particularly notable film special effects and CG supervisor. Twice nominated for awards within his field (the Visual Effects Society) but no evidence of notability outside his field (no significant coverage, no major award (Emmy, Oscar) wins or nominations). It may do well to note that this appears to be an autobiography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note -- page was moved to Christopher Christman during the nomination process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Actually it was copied to 4 different titles; I made 3 of them redirect to one of them. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

q: Yes , the above is an autobiography. Please bear with my Wiki folleys. I have been trying to set up a wiki presence similar to what my friend: /info/en/?search=Evan_jacobs has created for himself. This page was not created by other people on his behalf. It is a counterpart to his other pages, most of which he created. I mean this in a positive current, as I am simply pointing to a practical example to reference. And while I am not a member of the Producers Guild, been nominated for an Emmy, and am not particularly "notable" as the description of me reads, our day to day functions are very close to the same. Is a certified source simply a magazine write up where I am mentioned? I ask because the standard seems a bit subjective and I would love to comply and provide what is needed, so I am not deleted.... :)

Does a source such as the following count a something certified? Or perhaps a mention in an issue of Cinefex? Thank you. This or this at Goggle books or this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.25.43 ( talk) 00:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment The provided sources provide only the briefest mentions in passing, and, while they do verify that Christman was nominated for a Visual Effect Society award for his work on Ben 10, that is a relatively small accomplishment. (Nominated, not won, and the award itself is not considered a major award.) Mr. Christman has been informed about why his efforts to "set up a Wiki presence" are misdirected. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 02:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there aren't all that many SFX guys who attain the notability necessary to have their own Wikipedia article. Robert Kurtzman would be an example of someone who has articles written about him in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Fangoria, etc. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:59, 19 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jessica Grose

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

Subject of the article appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, or associated notability guidelines. Article is supported by articles about her books, but lacks non-trivial secondary references about the author - there are a number of primary references and trivial mentions. (wedding announcement, job change, etc.) Her books may meet WP:NOTBOOK, but I am not sure about the author. reddogsix ( talk) 01:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject meets several notability guidelines and general notability, particularly WP:N and WP:GNG. The author is a noted figure with significant coverage (at least *12* secondary sources cited) from reliable sources (New York Times, New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, etc). No original research is needed to extract the content, particularly because the two works, published by Hyperion and HarperCollins, have multiple independent reviews in top publications. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject does not appear to be the recipient of a significant award, though this hardly excludes any subject from article creation, particularly for creative professionals. The subject's name (with identifying publication or context) already appears in *40* other Wikipedia articles. A statement that the author is married is followed by a citation of an independent, secondary source (wedding announcement published by the New York Times, perhaps the most credible source on a biographical marriage) is simply a reliable citation. Similarly, each mention of a position held by the subject is cited by at least one independent, reliable, confirming news article or announcement (see WP:NEWSORG under WP:IRSS). Biographical information is often not cited at all in Wikipedia articles, the fact that this citation is available is further evidence of notability - (particularly WP:BASIC and WP:PEOPLE). It should be noted that the above claim by reddogsix that the article contains "a number of primary sources" had been corrected before this person created a deletion discussion. There is only one primary source listed--which is acceptable under WP:PRIMARY WP:PSTS anyway--which is an interview in The Wire wherein the journalist introduces the subject with original reporting. Another above claim by reddogsix that the article contains " trivial mentions. (wedding announcement, job change, etc.) " is not supported by relevant guidelines. Morganmissen ( talk) 07:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - Once again, supporting references are toned toward the books the authored by the individual. The question of whether or not these support notability of the author is in question. The items sourced by the creator of the article that directly relate to the article subject are trivial in nature. Job change announcements or brief mentions are hardly non-trivial. The fact that the article subject "already appears in *40* other Wikipedia articles" has no bearing in this discussion - although I could find only 5 or so. This brings us to the wedding announcement in the NY Times - as I pointed out the editor that created the page, the wedding announcement in the NY Times is far from a valid usable reference. Wedding announcements are generally submitted by the participant's family or related party. It is simply not independent. reddogsix ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment -- reddogsix, regarding independent sources (please see WP:IS), the wedding section of the New York Times is a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which "has a neutral point of view" and has "editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." Again, the cited source is The New York Times, not the subject's family, though, as with all journalistic writing, may provide details that inform the piece. The qualifier "According to a New York Times announcement," has been added to the biographical citation in case the independence of the New York Times remains in question.

The fact that the subject has 40 existing Wikipedia contributes to notability, particularly "The person is widely cited by their peers or successors" in WP:GNP and WP:AUTHOR. I'm not sure why you were only able to find five citations (perhaps try searching Google), though because the subject is a writer, many of the citations are under Last, First. Over a dozen direct links listed on Wikipedia here: /info/en/?search=Special:WhatLinksHere/Jessica_Grose

reddogsix's claim that any of the cited sources are "trivial in nature" is simply inaccurate. Each news report describing a job change or biographical information easily passes WP:TRIVIALMENTION, as they are the main topic of the sourced material: "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Wikipedia describes a "[[ trivial mention" as a "one sentence mention." Each job change citation in this article, however, includes the subject's name directly in the headline and directly discusses the subject. There are plenty of sources with what I would consider trivial mentions of the subject (for example, the wedding was also covered in Gawker, but along with other weddings: http://gawker.com/5562445/scoring-sundays-nuptials-enjoy-that-wedding-dress-cause-itll-never-fit-you-again) which have been excluded as sources from the beginning. Furthermore, these sources discuss the subject directly, not just the books as you suggest. If making a claim against an article, please be accurate and adhere to Wikipedia's definitions and descriptions -- otherwise pursuing deletion based on personal opinion is not a good use of contributors' and editors' valuable time. Morganmissen ( talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - <sigh/> May your Holidays be peaceful. reddogsix ( talk) 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep Articles in the New York Times [37], New Yorker [38] and CSM [39], plus an interview in the Wire [40] easily pass the notability test. And even though many of the articles are mainly about the books Grose has authored, most also talk about her and her history. Robman94 ( talk) 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep Agree with Robman94, I think those four sources provide plenty of notability. Krelnik ( talk) 19:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
This is iffy. Would have preferred to see an least one in-depth profile piece on her. E.g., I recently created Neetzan Zimmerman, it was much easier to find sourcing for him.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 05:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment Subject Jessica Grose is an author, not a blogger, so the two aren't comparable, even though Jessica Grose's blog was turned into a book by Hyperion. reddogsix, could you look at Milowent's article for Neetzan Zimmerman? This subject appears to only have online articles (none published, no published work by the subject either) to support notability, yet 4 (possibly 5, one is not viewable) of the 6 cited (LinkedIn Profile, Wall Street Journal, The Wire and New York Magazine and likely Boston Herald interviews) are primary sources. The only secondary source is a re-cap of one of the interviews by Business Insider. If primary sources and website interviews were permissible support for notability, Jessica Grose's article would easily have at least dozen more citations. Morganmissen ( talk) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

In 2013, saying someone is an "author" not a "blogger" is wholly irrelevant, the question is who writes about the person. Both Zimmerman and Grose come to any prominence after Gawker work. Its a shame you'd call Zimmerman to task when he is easily subject to more coverage than Grose. An interview as a portion of a profile piece does not make the profile piece a wholly "primary source". However, I've looked some more at the sources currently cite in this article, like [41], and maybe her notability is less "iffy" than I thought.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 20:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Milowent, the article you created for Neetzan Zimmerman relies almost solely on primary sources, which you should know is not acceptable for notability. If your statement is true that subject Neetzan Zimmerman has received more coverage than Jessica Grose, it should be easy for you to construct an article out of independent, reliable secondary sources as I have. Please do not remove maintenance tags again without improving the article, it should be reviewed by editors as this article subject has. If you recognize the secondary-sourced, in-depth coverage of subject Jessica Grose to meet notability guidelines, particularly relative to your comparison of Neetzan Zimmerman's primary sources, please amend your comments. Injecting unsupported personal opinions while violating Wikipedia guidelines does not make for constructive discussion. Morganmissen ( talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I am tired of this bullshit. An article which includes an interview component is not a 100% primary source. Delete Jessica Grose for all I care, the article sounds like a resume which is why I was skeptical about it. And I dare say you care a lot more than I do; you seem well versed in wikipedia lingo despite your very few edits including the creation of this article at AFD. I won't comment further here.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 21:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Milowent, I'm simply responding with an accurate description of your original comparison, there's no need to get angry or violate Wikipedia guidelines out of spite. Wikipedia guidelines are easy to understand, easy to find, and easy to follow! :) Again to clarify, Neetzan Zimmerman's article cites six sources, but in only one of those (a Business Insider post recapping one of the other sources) the subject did not directly contribute to the information cited. Jessica Grose's article cites sixteen secondary sources, only one of which includes information from the subject. reddogsix is pursuing deletion of Jessica Grose's article, so a fair comparison is in order. If you have any questions about primary sources, I'm sure reddogsix will be more than happy to explain. As I mentioned, reddogsix removed multiple interviews from the same publications from Jessica Grose's article claiming they were unacceptable, so given that and other issues with Neetzan Zimmerman's article, reddogsix will surely propose it for deletion as well. You two should talk though. Best holiday wishes to you. Morganmissen ( talk) 03:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - If you have issues with another article post it there - this is not the appropriate place for such discussion. Please don't include me in your passive aggressive behavior - it is not only inappropriate in the Wikipedia community it borders on WP: UNCIVIL behavior. I suggest you read WP:DEADHORSE. reddogsix ( talk) 03:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - Again, just responding to Milowent's comparison to Neetzan Zimmerman's Wikipedia article. I have not brought any other articles into this discussion :) reddogsix, I see that you removed all maintenance tags for Neetzan Zimmerman's article, despite its citing almost entirely what you have called primary sources, including the subject's own LinkedIn profile. I hope that action confirms to anyone reading that undue, inconsistent scrutiny was applied to this subject Jessica Grose by reddogsix, for reasons I'll leave to the reader to interpret.

I've only requested a fair review for this article, and have been able to defend each and every point using Wikipedia guidelines. Given the clear consensus that Jessica Grose's article satisfies reddogsix's notability and citation concerns, I look forward to resolution. Morganmissen ( talk) 10:12, 22 December 2013 (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 is a consensus that the article can not exist as standalone. There is no consensus whether it should be deleted, turned into a dab or turned into a set index. Since I have to cosse something, I choose delete following the majority and also, in my opinion, stronger arguments. After deletion I will boldly redirect it to Alicyclic chemistry.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Carbon ring

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

Several topics in this area are notable, but this article merges them into a non-notable unified group. The claims of notability are incorrect or the article's scope is too narrow to be correct (for example, I removed a bunch of content that included all sorts of "not just carbon" ring compounds as examples of carbon rings being biologically important). The individual topics are already covered in their own articles (with links and cites), for example, cycloalkane (and the specific subtopics cyclopentane, cyclohexane, ring strain, and cyclohexane conformation) and benzene. DMacks ( talk) 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete or turn into dab page. A random collection of facts about a topic already covered much better in Benzene, Cycloalkane, Cycloalkene, etc. It might be helpful to blank the content and turn this into a dab page, linking to the three or so main categories of carbon ring. -- 101.119.14.233 ( talk) 10:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Merge into the articles suggested above or into Alicyclic chemistry. There are adequate titles covering this topic already. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nothing in this article is remotely worth merging; it's very poorly formatted, and is clearly duplicating all of the related chemistry articles. I can't see how it would form a valid DAB page, and there are too many valid redirect targets. "Carbon ring" is something that, as a chemist, I rarely hear mentioned; benzene and aromatic rings, yes, but a conventional carbon ring? In my experience, they're just called cyclic compounds. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Possible dab content:

Carbon ring refers to rings of carbon atoms in organic compounds, including:

Aromaticity, the property of benzene rings
Alicyclic chemistry, the study of non-aromatic rings, including:

Cycloalkane molecules, where the ring contains no double bonds; and
Cycloalkene molecules, where the ring contains double bonds

It is a plausible search term, so a dab page could be a good idea. -- 101.119.14.20 ( talk) 13:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

As the old advertising logo went, "A little dab will do ya." Bearian ( talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have boldly turned the article into a dab page as suggested above; nobody wanted to keep the content anyway. -- 101.119.15.209 ( talk) 03:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- Comment. I have reverted your changes. What you created is not a dab page at all (see WP:DAB), but merely a list of examples. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  - I disagree, but I won't revert your revert just yet. The proposed dab page (content listed above) follows the same pattern as other dab pages like Football (disambiguation): it lists articles that readers might have meant when they typed in "carbon ring." And yes, thank you, I have read WP:DAB. -- 101.119.14.36 ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    - Certainly not a dab, since none of the topics are variations of the title "carbon ring", and all of the examples are WP:DABCONCEPT to it. I propose section redirecting to Carbon#Allotropes, the article at the highest level of abstraction to discuss the ability of carbon to form rings. bd2412 T 16:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      - Carbon#Allotropes would be the least helpful redirect, since it is totally unrelated to the subject of this article. We obviously want to disambiguate between Aromaticity and Alicyclic chemistry. Since two people are fighting a dab page (in my view, because they misinterpret WP:DAB), it looks like deletion is the only option. Possibly we could redirect to Alicyclic chemistry with a hatnote there pointing to Aromaticity. -- 101.119.14.134 ( talk) 00:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      - A carbon ring is not an allotrope (few exceptions). An allotrope of carbon may onlye contain carbon atoms, otherwise it isnt an allotrope. Christian75 ( talk) 11:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Convert to dab or set index or redirect to something with a hatnote on the target – its a valid serach term, and gets 30-100 hits per day. Christian75 ( talk) 11:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply
- A set index would be permissible in this case. bd2412 T 13:21, 23 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Alexander James Brown

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

An 18-year old "Entrepreneur". An apparent owner of two companies that have been established for one year. Unable to find any refs about Mr. Brown or his two companies outside of social media. Not sure if the companies are "legit". The article has been changed and vandalized many times, so not sure what is correct info or not. Bgwhite ( talk) 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Possibly a hoax (3 children at the age of 18) and certainly not notable.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:56, 26 December 2013 (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. Twice on Dec. 24: 06:47, 24 December 2013 by User:Alexf (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion), and 18:21, 24 December 2013 by User:Amatulic (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Özgür doğrugöz

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

Article is in a foreign language. Aclany ( talk) 00:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment: Translate page to English and/or move to Turkish Wikipedia, where the page does not exist. This might have been created in the wrong place. Creator is a new account that prior to this only made edits to Turkish pop music. Searches for this Turkish artist are turning up inconclusive on my computer due to the language barrier, but Facebook profile has more than 80,000 likes. Ivanvector ( talk) 04:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Wait for now. All the templates on the page suggest to me either that the creator's experienced at tr:wp, or that the creator's copied it from another article over there. I've requested help at the Turkish WP ( tr:Vikipedi:Köy çeşmesi (ilginize)), and we should definitely follow their suggestions. Nyttend ( talk) 15:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The article was deleted several times before. He is not a notable person.-- Rapsar ( talk) 21:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The article's been deleted 5 times (4 this year) on the Wikipedia for the language it's written in? There's no way this belongs on English Wikipedia. Delete and salt. Ivanvector ( talk) 22:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete: Not notable. 80,000 fans on facebook, but no one comments there except him, just another sign of big atttempts to market himself. Youtube videos generally have very low views as well.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 04:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article obviously doesn't belong here due to the language issue, and the tr:wp deletion log shows that he doesn't belong there either. Nyttend ( talk) 05:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. I've transferred this article into Turkish spoken Wikipedia. For now: either somebody can translate it (but please don't use Google Translator, Turk languages are tricky as fuck) or this article can be deleted for now. I'm in favour of deleting it -- Saviour1981 ( talk) 23:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per Nyttend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination Flat Out let's discuss it 11:52, 24 December 2013 (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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook