The result was Moving to General Mathematics (education) and then merge.. v/r - T P 15:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The title of this page is wildly inappropriate. It should at least be """ and even that is probably too general, so something like "Mathematics education in the USA" would be best (although an australian source has been added, so that part should be called with "Mathematics education in Australia". These articlea already exist. The reason I am suggesting deletion instead of a merge is 1. This page needs to be merged to 2 different places, and 2. Merging always leaves a redirect. The term General Mathematics should not, in my opinion, redirect to a page about mathematics education, in either the USA or Australia. Benboy00 ( talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Also, the content of the article is very limited, and even if there weren't the problem of US and Australian maths education jammed together here, and if the title was more specific, this alone does not seem nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. TLDR: This page should be deleted, and bits of it copied to here and here. Benboy00 ( talk) 12:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Per James500's sources. There are BLP concerns and concerns about an over-dependence on primary sources. I've discounted two !votes which appear to be SPAs. Weighing this discussion, James500's rationale seems most convincing. v/r - T P 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
There are no sources that cover this small business owner in substantial depth. The article relies on a mix of primary sources (company website + court document), sources that are about his company that already has an article, and sources like the NYT link that doesn't appear to actually mention him. The remainder are brief mentions. There is already an article on his business (barely notable as it is) and I don't see a need for a separate one on him. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
12.238.238.104 ( talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDICDEF This page is purely about an uncommon english word, and it is not notable in any way, shape or form. Maybe the middle sentence could be added to the article for cajon. Benboy00 ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus is that this is essentially promotion for a cause. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non- notable businessman and "anti-LASIK activist". Kantis has made a lot of noise about his poor LASIK surgery outcome, but the sourcing of this article is mostly primary (his own website, references to his own website on other websites, etc). What material there is in reliable sources is passing mention at best. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Hello to all. My name is Dean Andrew Kantis. First, if LASIK is so safe, why is there so much controversy that has surrounded it since inception? David Muller ( Avedro's Collagen Cross Linking's CEO) CEO of the infamous Summit Technologies (who created and marketed LASIK, financed Ted Kennedy's re-election campaigns, how their lasers caused permanent corneal weakening, instability, and dry eye disease. David Muller, CEO of Summit Technologies, investigated in the America Investigates Series shown here:
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXNN65PF_HA (10 minutes) Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9THraSVkOs (10 minutes) Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0hvMJsQyA (10 minutes) Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVVXeJVL3U (10 minutes) Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZS_eWRkdU (5 minutes) Part Six: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSWNuXrYPg (10 minutes) Part Seven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pTZ7Ffw9EE (10 minutes)
Second, please hold off your (consensus) vote until you see the Dr. Oz LASIK Warning that comes out in 2 days, on 10/3/13 at 3pm central time as explained here: (this is as current of news as it gets right?) http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/undercover-lasik-surgery-investigation . Second, my apologies for trying to upload a few pictures of the logos for each of my causes. As I surf through Wikipedia, I see pictures on most pages, so I'm not sure I understand why my pictures are "off limits." But no problem. Please google my name and YouTube my name. There are hundreds if not thousands of credible references about me and my anti-LASIK causes that are backed by solid facts and scientific studies. In fact, I was the one who got Dr. Morris Waxler out in Oct. 2009, he's the ex chief of medical devices that gave the FDA Approval for LASIK surgery, and is now speaking out against LASIK saying he was "tricked and deceived" and that the LASIK industry "cooked the safety studies" to get it through the FDA approval process. (This is a medical conspiracy and people who did it need to be arrested). In fact, here's the proof on a conference call with Morris when he said "WE FUCKED UP" approving LASIK at 18:30 into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nXI2QNat8 . Since, he's been on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS to name just a few media venues, explaining this. His petition explained this and was submitted on Jan. 6th, 2011 to the FDA. He has not had a reply from his own FDA to date, and he won't because they too are in on it and were placed in high positions of power by the industry to watch over profits, etc. Here's his petition calling for a Criminal Investigation: http://lifeafterlasik.com/LASIK%20Morris%20FDA%20Petition%20Jan%206%202011.pdf .
Here's an 81 minute powerpoint that Dr. Waxler presented in front of 3,000 Optometrists to prevent them from referring patients to get LASIK so they understand the known long-term damages: http://www.odwire.org/forum/content/175-The-Evidence-LASIK-Makes-Healthy-Eyes-Sick
I'm so dedicated to protecting you and your families from harm, that I produced a mini-film, "In The Blink of An Eye...A LASIK PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY," to explain all of this so that you would be spared from this incurable, dry eye inducing, not needed surgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtbxM-jUXA .
I've been interviewed over and over on tv about LASIK and how the industry lies, shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzqwzQo0Oc . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQD3b-cFZdA . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BUFkWdtVP0 .
Here's my petition filed on Jan. 5th, 2007: FDA-2007-P-0116 Dean Andrew Kantis Take steps to insure the safety of Americans regarding the misuses of Lasik 01/05/07 I was sued by my own LASIK doctor for speaking the truth about his 60 LASIK lawsuits and for warning the public: http://www.dmlp.org/threats/st-george-corrective-vision-v-kantis . I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the points. My name and what I have done for FREE to expose the LASIK industry is invaluable.
My petition to the FDA was submitted on Jan. 4th, 2007, which prompted the "EMERGENCY LASIK OPHTHALMIC DEVICE PANEL DISCUSSION" in Wash, DC on April 25th,, 2008 where 20 of us paid to go to DC and speak in front of the FDA and the industry's paid ASCRS forum, in order to beg them to help us, and other victims, and to redact the FDA LASIK APPROVAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTAHDLAwKkw .
If you had a good LASIK outcome, hurray! But please don't think that even after 3, 5, 10 years that you're in the clear. This is exactly what Dr. Waxler and Dr. Oz will be covering on his show in 2 days! People do not realize that your eyes get drier each year from this procedure touted as "safe and effective and FDA Approved." Please be open minded, thank you.
I fully agree with that statement. This is the first but not the last time I will comment. I have no hidden agenda and do not watch a discussion page for comments , let alone look up whether people have commented before. So what's your deal Nat? Oh comic books at age 48, never mind. The Peanuts Collection? The Sun Times which is the new National Enquirer of Chicago? I would have an issue with a real article also then. Gibco65 ( talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Meat Puppet really? Let me retort to your accusations. 1) I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for many years. 2) You have continually attacked this persons page and have more opinions that are not based on facts on this discussion by far. When nobody comments you write another one. You have FOUR negative comments in a row that are without merit. You are obviously heavily biased and yet you comment "Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all". So then basically in simplest terms Jonas Salk is of no consequence to others. Albert Einstein, I could go on and on. 3) While I do not personally like Dr. Oz, he is an M.D. Are you? 4) The fact that you attacked my comments within an hour of posting does hint of hidden agendas. I was just stating my opinions which evidently I don't have a right to and you come after me like a shark comes after a bleeding seal. 5) You figured out whose page I was talking about Lesion. 6) Who made you two the Wikipedia police? Basically who lets you decide who is notable or not? Yourself? If that's the case I suggest you get a hobby. 7) For Nat: "Wikipedians who like Buffy"? Are you serious? You claim to be an editor and really Buffy and Angel? Lets get real. That is the page that should be deleted. It is useless. This isn't Facebook. I am sorry for not understanding that you did not put "Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)". Usually when someone's name is on a comment it just makes sense to assume that they put it there. 8) Lesion you should have a strong sense of unease. Wikipedia is just that. Wikipedia. It is an immediate "F" if quoted in a thesis or dissertation. It is to be taken with a grain of salt yet you have an inflated sense of self worth and the same for Wikipedia. Basically you do not like what this Dean Andrew Kantis is saying, that's all. It's plain and simple. 9) If you lived in Chicago and know what went on here and the Lasik "doctor" involved, you might have a little different opinion. How about many blinded because of deranged doctor? Really all you have to have to perform Lasik is an MD and a weekend of training. How about 50+ lawsuits? How about the guy who wrote the article is one? How about you are somehow related to said doctor because he even had the nerve to sue the people he blinded who sued him. Your unease over this makes me suspicious. 10) There you go again, starting a new thread because you are heavily biased against this persons or anyone else's opinions. Your hubris is disturbing. Gibco65 ( talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
You did call me a meat puppet and how can that possibly not be considered a personal attack? Because Wikipedia says is not an insult does not make it true. It was a blatant insult that's intentions were to get a rise out of me, plain and simple. I was prevented from posting a reply to your little rant. You seem biased to me and so does Nat. That being said, lets let the people decide if it is noteworthy instead of you two alone. I was not recruited, I have been using Wikipedia for about six years and did hear about this on the internet. Einstein was not supposed to be in my response but after following the instructions for posting it took 11 tries to post. That's childish and blatant censorship. By the time my comment went through it was the original unedited rough draft. Einstein was not supposed to be in the answer to your comment but Salk was. All I ask is this. Instead of you and Nat Gertler deciding on this, let some other non biased editors decide. You both have seem to have made up your minds a long time ago so either let someone impartial decide and recuse yourselves or you can continue with your excuse of being falsely accused of bias and not hurling insults. Meat puppet is an insult. I would also like to see this discussion a neutral and accurate presentation of topics. The truth of the matter is has not been. Maybe its the Chicago in me but not letting me post my comments and calling me names is not neutral. You can argue that to you pass out. I think the article warrants consideration, its notable, that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. It is my opinion and my opinion alone. You and Nat can come up with 101 excuses as to you are impartial but your comments speak for themselves. See: Common Sense. Let all the editors decide, this is childish and undermines Wikipedia. That's really all I want. I am no meat puppet nor have been recruited. I think the article with revision is worthy of Wikipedia. Now lets see if I am allowed to post this. Gibco65 ( talk) 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Alright I did take it as an insult but the thing that started my attitude was the fact it was pointed out that Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Evidently it might be the rules per say but it was edited on to comment exactly 20 minutes after I posted. To me that meant Nat was watching this AFD at the time. I personally did not think it was relevant hence my feeling that there was bias. Let me perfectly honest it regards to last night and the BS that transpired. I was not asked to write anything by anyone. I wrote what I wrote because it was my honest opinion. I did stumble upon it on the internet. I know that it meets the following criteria:
I Emailed Wikipedia as to how to have my voice heard on this matter. They Emailed me back and told me how. I did this on my own. I wrote my reasons why the article is worthy and it seemed to me that since there were already snide comments, that they were acceptable. Then Bam within 20 minutes "Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD." Does that really make difference? At sometime everybody has to make a first contribution. It came from an editor and I really thought you were editors to help Wikipedia meet its guidelines and not to be outright biased. I was wrong and respect your right to vote and then add your comments. You don't have to be biased or rude about it though and that is the way you came across. Basically if the article needs editing to meet guidelines, you are editors. Help by offering your expertise in editing. I did have an edit conflict but think about it; if you had just butted heads with editors and all of a sudden you could not comment, you would think the same. I would not butt heads with some with horns. Nat Gertler : I did not realize that pointing out that someone has never commented before was a Wikipedia rule. To me it seemed like you were smarmy and just had to point out that I was commenting for the first time on something I feel is Wikipedia worthy. Yes I have strong feelings about this just as you guys do. Its just it seemed to me that you being in a position to offer advice on to edit the article in question was pretty much what I had read on the internet many times. Most of the editors are strongly biased and what happened last night let me to believe that. I apologize for getting extremely personal in my attacks against you, I was out of line. I was called a meat puppet. To me that was an outright insult but now I realize that it is phrase that editors use. For the record, I do not like puppets and eat very little meat. Seriously I know them as basically a punk band. To be called a meat puppet was akin to being called a punk. In closing I think the article with some editing should stay. That is my opinion and mine alone. Gibco65 ( talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
So what we are left with is:
TLDR summary-- Dean Andrew Kantis is mostly known in specific circles for his opposition to LASIK. His notability to a general audience is limited to media coverage of a petition to the FDA. The article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, and there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss him in with significant coverage. A few sentences on the LASIK page would be appropriate, stating that a petition was submitted to the FDA, and with the background "an Anti-LASIK campaigner". I have not looked in detail at the LASIK page, but there appears to be undue weight given to anti-LASIK content. The creator of this page also has edited the LASIK page, which may indicate sourcing problems there too. Lesion ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
While I personally cannot stand "celebrity doctors" there are many who have their own Wikipedia pages. A lot of self serving pages: I know this falls under WP:OSE but I will show an example however irrelevant it might be. Dan Reinstein: He is known for one thing; he was slightly involved in the development of the now obsolete Artemis scanner. The rest of his article is basically fluff and is mostly a covert ad for The London Vision Clinic which he owns. His involvement with Carl Zeiss Meditec is overstated but verifiable. He may have 97 Peer related publications but they are mostly from other people with his comments added on. This is verifiable hence proper but not necessary fully truthful. Laser blended vision is another name for mono vision and his jazz performances consist of a talented jazz band playing, him playing sax, getting out of breath and then leaning on things as other musicians play. I have seen this first hand. That does not meet the burden of proof for AfD but I cannot site YouTube as a reference. To me it seems that verifiability is much more important then the truth as I read it. Does he plays saxophone? Is laser blended vision the same as mono vision? Yes and it is verifiable. Does he play well IMO or for a whole piece? No, also verifiable but left out of his article. While this falls under a totally different category I am basically stating the complete opposite side of this discussion but one that has been brought up before. Celebrity doctors. This is not so much a comment as to why one article is better then another. It goes to whether an article is Noteworthy yet in the previous article nobody calls for AfD. It just that it appears that Reinsteins article is professionally written but is the same thing just opposite sides. If you pick through it, the references should be thoroughly checked and so should most of what is stated in the article. Is it most of it verifiable? Questionable. Is it truthful? No because of the old lying through omission thing but all it has to meet is verifiability and worthiness. Is this a legitimate point under Wikipedia rules? Perhaps. Why? because one article was written with half truths professionally by someone who knows Wikipedia guidelines and the one that is up for AfD was not. References to papers that are published and then someone throws their name on them IMO are not credible sources but are verifiable. Very much like the Dr. Oz point brought up. He did not do any the research for his TV show on Lasik. He did present it. Because of his celebrity status does that make him an expert on Lasik or was it self serving? If you look at his page it might also be considered for AfD. Regarding of whether an apple can kill you or whether homosexuals can be "cured", I am disturbed as to the truthfulness of these things and while one can be verified and the other is utter nonsense IMO can that statement be verified or is it just junk science?
QUESTION: All right one last one. I was not just making a statement based on comparison, I am trying to figure out what is suitability for notability and clarification. It was an example and was brought up earlier in the discussion, Dr. Oz. I'm am just making a comment here that is really just a question. Dr Oz. He claims that homosexuality is a disease based on pseudoscience on Wikipedia, even though this has been pointed out as a Controversy. What proof or truth is there to that? That goes toward verification. Controversy if pointed out constitutes verification even though it's not a truthful statement? His FDA claim about apple juice is another. Because the FDA says that the level of arsenic were above the amount allowed in water but not juice make his claim unverifiable. So what the FDA and consumer reports says is verifiable how? That is my question. The whole verifiability thing confuses me and really is my question. My question is what passes the "smell test" for verification. I know that truth is out but doesn't verification have to be based on truthfulness? It is a question and not a statement. The comparison was to see what passed the "smell" test and what didn't. I'm trying to learn. My comparison was based on two factors, one that Reinstein claims to be a leading authority on the correction of complications of laser eye surgery and has an article on Wikipedia so it is on the complete opposite end of the this discussion. Who made that statement? Many refractive surgeons would strongly disagree, I know a few. Now just because I said that does that meet verification or would I have to have said doctors publish their disagreement and then reference it? I would say he is very pro Lasik yet his article has some pretty sketchy verifications as per what I just wrote but yet passes the "smell" test hence is OK for Wikipedia. Dr. Oz who has been mentioned in this AfD. Same thing, some wild things said but no real evidence to back it up. What passes the "smell test"? You cannot have complete verification without truthfulness. That is my question as it pertains to this. Comparison to other articles was to constitute verification. I really don't know how you can have verification without truth. I ask you Lesion to help me with this being that you are much more familiar with this and especially on medical issues. While this really has nothing to do with this discussion please help me understand my dilemma. In medicine others cannot verify your results if you are not truthful or in any science for that matter. I need to know how something can be verified with a lie if you will. Truthfulness has to be considered in verification or the article in is invalid.
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:ORG. Eighteither ( talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete, There is no any reliable information in this article, no facts which would be verified by RS, sheer falsification and original researches of the writers of this article. Almost all of the facts in this article absurd results of original research. But there are no reliable sources nor in the Armenian, nor in English about that "symbol". -- Δαβίδ ( talk) 17:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history
https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history
and my talk page
commons:User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP_vandalism
He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Commons:Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal. No have matter for discussion.
Vahram Mekhitarian ( talk) 04:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Maybe you should try to give time to that user, and not delete everything he adds? Have you ever tried to use TalkPage of the article? Хаченци ( talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC) replyBecause the user consistently adding here OR text
It's not about what you know or what you want. It's about what you're allowed to do and what you aren't. You should assume that other users do not have bad goals while editing WP, unless otherwise proven. What you're doing is provocating an EW and then complaining to admins. You never even tried to use the Talk Page, before starting an edit war. That's something you should have done. If you beleive that something is nonsense, it does not mean that it really is.And I'm not going to leave that noncense here, because I know what that user is tring to prove here-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is completely different discussion on Russian WP. And the Russian WP article is clearly something which one should bring as an example, since there are 30 sources there and almost every claim is supported by several sources. Хаченци ( talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC) replyThe same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.
Keep: After extensively reviewing the article and doing my own research, I'm convinced that this is a significant and notable component in the symbolic identity of the Armenian people. I think this article could use a little bit of expansion with the help of foreign language sources, since I believe that most of the information pertaining to the Armenian eternity symbol is found within them. Above all, the symbol is definitely notable and highlights an important part of the Armenian identity through architecture, visual arts, and other stylized motifs. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I added some sources, to show how often it is used in Armenia, in culture and official symbolics. All given sources refer to the same symbol, under the same name 'sign of eternity' (or 'symbol of eternity'). Хаченци ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Enormous puff piece. Individual colleges are rarely notable by our standards, and I don't see any reason (besides the unverified and inflated claims made in the article) to believe differently about this one. Drmies ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Melilla. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
barely notable location Indiasummer95 ( talk) 20:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Mecklenburg County Public Schools. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability, no independent sources, nothing but routine local coverage found via Google News. Was prodded, prod removed by The Whispering Wind with an edit summary of "no WP:BEFORE consideration of a merge or redirect". Well, absent third-party sources there's no content to merge, and we don't have an article on the school district, so there's nothing to redirect or merge to. The Chase City, Virginia article has no relevant content and would not be a helpful target for a redirect. Huon ( talk) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Early close, snow delete. Yunshui 雲 水 12:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:GNG, unsourced and google searches produce no results ( [14], [15]). AldezD ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable slang. This isn't urban dictionary. Googled the phrase and didn't find anything of substance. Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
per not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NCYC; my Google search found nothing, granted it did ask me "did you mean ..." several variations of the name tat, but nevertheless proved nothing ... based on this article, he does not appear to have appeared in requisite events or have finished on the podium, and ergo, I fail to see his notability Go Phightins ! 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Not well-defined scope (who says what is "important", or why "cardiology trials" is a unified encyclopediac topic). No evidence that these trials are actually high quality (many refs look like primary research, not WP:MEDRS). Inbound links make it look like a dumping ground for refs from other articles and/or implication that the number of refs itself on some topic might be significant (but again the list is cherry-picked with no defined inclusion criteria or scope). Tagged for these concerns for 9 months, nobody seems to care except to remove the tags and to pile in more refs. DMacks ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is quite short and I added most of the sources myself. In addition, most of the impact Burbacher's research has had has been through a single study (the EHP study). In my view, Burbacher does not meet WP:PROF. Jinkinson ( talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy_Powers
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable organization. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable individual. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
No attempt to create an article. Just a dump of various random info. Probably mostly copyvio. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Black Kite ( talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 09:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note the multitude of tags: no sources verify that this outfit is notable by our standards (GNG or CORP). Even if all the claims in the article are true, booking concerts for a few notable bands does not make for notability. Drmies ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. Black Kite ( talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Much as I'd hate to get rid of this (as I'm technically a part of this program), I can't find evidence of notability for it. All sources in the article are primary, a basic Google search comes up with nothing outside of USC material, and a GNews search comes up with only passing mentions (e.g. "Kathy Smith, the head of the John C. Hench Division of Animation and Digital Arts" type mentions). Redirect to the broader USC School of Cinematic Arts is possible, but the current title isn't IMO specific enough to point directly to USC, so that should really only be done if a merge is decided on. Ansh 6 6 6 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. AS it already has an entry at the target I have redirected; any further information may be merged across. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This does not establish notability independent of Marvel through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No deletion rationale has been provided by nominator or anyone since. — Tom Morris ( talk) 09:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Basket Feudalist 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY is an issue here. Basket Feudalist 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was closed, wrong forum. Any requests to delete just the talk page of an article, without requesting the deletion of the article itself, should be directed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP Basket Feudalist 11:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Google search has no hits for RSes partially because the term has another meaning. Nothing at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to
Fenton, Michigan delete and salt. Consensus is that this should not be an individual article (through deletion, merging or redirecting); the chosen result is to Redirect to
Fenton, Michigan and let editors merge out any relevant content from this title's history; it will also be salted for a year per request to avoid repeated recreation. :) ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
G4 declined for no reason. Blatant advertising for a non-notable strip mall. The only sources are the individual websites of the companies in it, a couple real estate listings on Loopnet, and a fansite about drive-in theaters. No secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources do not support notability. Searched and did not find any on first five Google pages. One problem is that there are two bands with this name and the 1960s band is notable. The other problem is that the term is general and I'm getting completely unrelated hits when searching for Mythology (band). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The page seems to be promotion, possibly self-promotion (breaking WP:COI and WP:SPAM). The main editor to the page has only contributed to this article. It's a mod that is unreleased and currently unpopular. -- Rhain1999 ( talk to me) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. recreated content. Rs chen 7754 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adrian Visby, Adrian Visby (musician), Adrian.Visby, Adrian Visby (artist), Adrian Visby (activist), Adrian Visby (producer/musician/engineer), Adrian Visby (producer/musician), Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Boyd, Adrian Voyd, Cabalaza Music, Cabalaza Republic, The Fragile v4, Heavenade, Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby), LadyDelay, Civilexit? and more. Not notable. Delete, salt, scorch, ban. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD ( talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD ( talk) 20:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G12 as unambigous copyright infringement. -- みんな空の下 ( トーク) (non-admin closure) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable community radio station lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix ( talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Previous article on the subject was deleted and this one was recreated out-of-process. Seems to me to fail WP:CORP with apologies for the WP:FRINGE issues involved where WP:ONEEVENT coverage seems to have happened as a part of various "News of the Weird" segments. It is clear that this organization has not yet received the prominent notice necessary for it to be covered in Wikipedia. It's just a club for cranks and there are a few webpages and off-handed mentions of it in obscure outfits. jps ( talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Here are some other independent/mainstream references to the NPA, with neutral or derogatory descriptions of what it is and what it does. Many of these references are short, so the question becomes if they are enough to cause someone to turn to Wikipedia to find out about the organization.
Each editor that reviews Wertheim's books, and articles, and then descibes NPA in the review, is making an independent decision that the *topic* is notable. In terms of whether the group is composed of cranks or geniuses, they are relying on Wertheim. But not whether it's of interest to them or their readers. They decide this for themselves.
More examples:
There are a number of blogs with neutral or skeptical takes on NPA. These are of course not reliable sources, but can serve of evidence of notability.
Here is a press release from NPA. I could certainly imagine someone would like to look NPA up on Wikipedia after seeing this, since Wikipedia has a much better record of neutrality than press releases.
From WP:NOTE. See WP:GNG footnote #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." That is exactly the case here with different sources covering the same Wertheim sources and even using the same quotes from it. At best they count as a single source.
The Scientist is a solid source as far as I can tell. The book reviews are about the book not the organization. Complicated by the fact the book author is a member of the organization (in terms of using these sources for the org's notability vs. the book's notability). The Blogs don't count towards notability. Basically we have one source from 1995 The Scientist, then Wertheim and everything that originates from Wertheim, which I think at best counts as a single source - so two good sources total. Beyond that, there is apparently now enough sourcing to support an article for Physics on the Fringe [current redirect] by Margaret Wertheim, since multiple book reviews in very high quality sources make the book notable under WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Wertheim's book counts towards notability, despite the fact she is a member of NPA. When a member of a group writes about that group, notability depends very much on the extent that the goals of the person and the group are aligned. So when the president of a group writes about the group, it's presumably aligned and not notable. But when Edward Snowden wrote about the NSA's PRISM program, it was extremely notable, even though he was a member/employee of the NSA. In fact it was much more notable, and would not have been believed had he not been a member. Likewise criticism of a political party is much more notable if it comes from a party member, claims of unethical behavior by a company are more notable if made by an employee, and so on. So membership in a group is not a ban on notability; it also depends (strongly) on the content of the work. Reading Wertheim's material, she is sympathetic to the NPA but her goal is to describe the organization, not promote it. Despite her membership, she herself does not believe the primary tenet of NPA, namely that modern physics is wrong. The reviews reinforce this view; even the ones that think she is too charitable towards the NPA do not believe she holds this belief because she thinks the NPA is right - she thinks it is valuable even though it is founded on an incorrect premise. So her book (and articles) definitely count as notable references to NPA. LouScheffer ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 06:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has been speedily deleted four times, most recently today, on the grounds of promotion or non-notability. Can we get a final declaration of this finding, and perhaps salt the article? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails notability; no independent reliable sources are cited in the article, and Google Books turns up no relevant results. I couldn't find any significant third-party coverage from Google web search, either. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While participation is low in this twenty day old AfD the consensus around the lack of referencing is clear. — Spaceman Spiff 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix ( talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Black Kite ( talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is an orgy of original research.
"Eigenclass" is a term used among Ruby developers to describe the shim class created internally to support per-instance methods. Even within Ruby, it's not a core concept that's essential to grasp in order to be able to use or reason about the language. The Ruby article mentions the pattern in passing by its pragmatic, unfancy name: singleton methods.
This article gives the false impression that this language-specific feature (AFAICT, even Smalltalk has no built-in support for it) is an established topic in computer science.
The vast bulk of the article is unreferenced. Those references that do exist fall into three categories a) links to Ruby documentation b) links to articles that don't mention "eigenclass" or "eigenclass model" in any way and c) links to a single non-notable site that appears to contain the same material as the article.
chocolateboy ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Moving to General Mathematics (education) and then merge.. v/r - T P 15:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The title of this page is wildly inappropriate. It should at least be """ and even that is probably too general, so something like "Mathematics education in the USA" would be best (although an australian source has been added, so that part should be called with "Mathematics education in Australia". These articlea already exist. The reason I am suggesting deletion instead of a merge is 1. This page needs to be merged to 2 different places, and 2. Merging always leaves a redirect. The term General Mathematics should not, in my opinion, redirect to a page about mathematics education, in either the USA or Australia. Benboy00 ( talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment Also, the content of the article is very limited, and even if there weren't the problem of US and Australian maths education jammed together here, and if the title was more specific, this alone does not seem nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. TLDR: This page should be deleted, and bits of it copied to here and here. Benboy00 ( talk) 12:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Per James500's sources. There are BLP concerns and concerns about an over-dependence on primary sources. I've discounted two !votes which appear to be SPAs. Weighing this discussion, James500's rationale seems most convincing. v/r - T P 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
There are no sources that cover this small business owner in substantial depth. The article relies on a mix of primary sources (company website + court document), sources that are about his company that already has an article, and sources like the NYT link that doesn't appear to actually mention him. The remainder are brief mentions. There is already an article on his business (barely notable as it is) and I don't see a need for a separate one on him. CorporateM ( Talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
12.238.238.104 ( talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Spaceman Spiff 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDICDEF This page is purely about an uncommon english word, and it is not notable in any way, shape or form. Maybe the middle sentence could be added to the article for cajon. Benboy00 ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus is that this is essentially promotion for a cause. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non- notable businessman and "anti-LASIK activist". Kantis has made a lot of noise about his poor LASIK surgery outcome, but the sourcing of this article is mostly primary (his own website, references to his own website on other websites, etc). What material there is in reliable sources is passing mention at best. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Hello to all. My name is Dean Andrew Kantis. First, if LASIK is so safe, why is there so much controversy that has surrounded it since inception? David Muller ( Avedro's Collagen Cross Linking's CEO) CEO of the infamous Summit Technologies (who created and marketed LASIK, financed Ted Kennedy's re-election campaigns, how their lasers caused permanent corneal weakening, instability, and dry eye disease. David Muller, CEO of Summit Technologies, investigated in the America Investigates Series shown here:
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXNN65PF_HA (10 minutes) Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9THraSVkOs (10 minutes) Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0hvMJsQyA (10 minutes) Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVVXeJVL3U (10 minutes) Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZS_eWRkdU (5 minutes) Part Six: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSWNuXrYPg (10 minutes) Part Seven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pTZ7Ffw9EE (10 minutes)
Second, please hold off your (consensus) vote until you see the Dr. Oz LASIK Warning that comes out in 2 days, on 10/3/13 at 3pm central time as explained here: (this is as current of news as it gets right?) http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/undercover-lasik-surgery-investigation . Second, my apologies for trying to upload a few pictures of the logos for each of my causes. As I surf through Wikipedia, I see pictures on most pages, so I'm not sure I understand why my pictures are "off limits." But no problem. Please google my name and YouTube my name. There are hundreds if not thousands of credible references about me and my anti-LASIK causes that are backed by solid facts and scientific studies. In fact, I was the one who got Dr. Morris Waxler out in Oct. 2009, he's the ex chief of medical devices that gave the FDA Approval for LASIK surgery, and is now speaking out against LASIK saying he was "tricked and deceived" and that the LASIK industry "cooked the safety studies" to get it through the FDA approval process. (This is a medical conspiracy and people who did it need to be arrested). In fact, here's the proof on a conference call with Morris when he said "WE FUCKED UP" approving LASIK at 18:30 into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nXI2QNat8 . Since, he's been on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS to name just a few media venues, explaining this. His petition explained this and was submitted on Jan. 6th, 2011 to the FDA. He has not had a reply from his own FDA to date, and he won't because they too are in on it and were placed in high positions of power by the industry to watch over profits, etc. Here's his petition calling for a Criminal Investigation: http://lifeafterlasik.com/LASIK%20Morris%20FDA%20Petition%20Jan%206%202011.pdf .
Here's an 81 minute powerpoint that Dr. Waxler presented in front of 3,000 Optometrists to prevent them from referring patients to get LASIK so they understand the known long-term damages: http://www.odwire.org/forum/content/175-The-Evidence-LASIK-Makes-Healthy-Eyes-Sick
I'm so dedicated to protecting you and your families from harm, that I produced a mini-film, "In The Blink of An Eye...A LASIK PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY," to explain all of this so that you would be spared from this incurable, dry eye inducing, not needed surgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtbxM-jUXA .
I've been interviewed over and over on tv about LASIK and how the industry lies, shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzqwzQo0Oc . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQD3b-cFZdA . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BUFkWdtVP0 .
Here's my petition filed on Jan. 5th, 2007: FDA-2007-P-0116 Dean Andrew Kantis Take steps to insure the safety of Americans regarding the misuses of Lasik 01/05/07 I was sued by my own LASIK doctor for speaking the truth about his 60 LASIK lawsuits and for warning the public: http://www.dmlp.org/threats/st-george-corrective-vision-v-kantis . I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the points. My name and what I have done for FREE to expose the LASIK industry is invaluable.
My petition to the FDA was submitted on Jan. 4th, 2007, which prompted the "EMERGENCY LASIK OPHTHALMIC DEVICE PANEL DISCUSSION" in Wash, DC on April 25th,, 2008 where 20 of us paid to go to DC and speak in front of the FDA and the industry's paid ASCRS forum, in order to beg them to help us, and other victims, and to redact the FDA LASIK APPROVAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTAHDLAwKkw .
If you had a good LASIK outcome, hurray! But please don't think that even after 3, 5, 10 years that you're in the clear. This is exactly what Dr. Waxler and Dr. Oz will be covering on his show in 2 days! People do not realize that your eyes get drier each year from this procedure touted as "safe and effective and FDA Approved." Please be open minded, thank you.
I fully agree with that statement. This is the first but not the last time I will comment. I have no hidden agenda and do not watch a discussion page for comments , let alone look up whether people have commented before. So what's your deal Nat? Oh comic books at age 48, never mind. The Peanuts Collection? The Sun Times which is the new National Enquirer of Chicago? I would have an issue with a real article also then. Gibco65 ( talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Meat Puppet really? Let me retort to your accusations. 1) I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for many years. 2) You have continually attacked this persons page and have more opinions that are not based on facts on this discussion by far. When nobody comments you write another one. You have FOUR negative comments in a row that are without merit. You are obviously heavily biased and yet you comment "Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all". So then basically in simplest terms Jonas Salk is of no consequence to others. Albert Einstein, I could go on and on. 3) While I do not personally like Dr. Oz, he is an M.D. Are you? 4) The fact that you attacked my comments within an hour of posting does hint of hidden agendas. I was just stating my opinions which evidently I don't have a right to and you come after me like a shark comes after a bleeding seal. 5) You figured out whose page I was talking about Lesion. 6) Who made you two the Wikipedia police? Basically who lets you decide who is notable or not? Yourself? If that's the case I suggest you get a hobby. 7) For Nat: "Wikipedians who like Buffy"? Are you serious? You claim to be an editor and really Buffy and Angel? Lets get real. That is the page that should be deleted. It is useless. This isn't Facebook. I am sorry for not understanding that you did not put "Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)". Usually when someone's name is on a comment it just makes sense to assume that they put it there. 8) Lesion you should have a strong sense of unease. Wikipedia is just that. Wikipedia. It is an immediate "F" if quoted in a thesis or dissertation. It is to be taken with a grain of salt yet you have an inflated sense of self worth and the same for Wikipedia. Basically you do not like what this Dean Andrew Kantis is saying, that's all. It's plain and simple. 9) If you lived in Chicago and know what went on here and the Lasik "doctor" involved, you might have a little different opinion. How about many blinded because of deranged doctor? Really all you have to have to perform Lasik is an MD and a weekend of training. How about 50+ lawsuits? How about the guy who wrote the article is one? How about you are somehow related to said doctor because he even had the nerve to sue the people he blinded who sued him. Your unease over this makes me suspicious. 10) There you go again, starting a new thread because you are heavily biased against this persons or anyone else's opinions. Your hubris is disturbing. Gibco65 ( talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
You did call me a meat puppet and how can that possibly not be considered a personal attack? Because Wikipedia says is not an insult does not make it true. It was a blatant insult that's intentions were to get a rise out of me, plain and simple. I was prevented from posting a reply to your little rant. You seem biased to me and so does Nat. That being said, lets let the people decide if it is noteworthy instead of you two alone. I was not recruited, I have been using Wikipedia for about six years and did hear about this on the internet. Einstein was not supposed to be in my response but after following the instructions for posting it took 11 tries to post. That's childish and blatant censorship. By the time my comment went through it was the original unedited rough draft. Einstein was not supposed to be in the answer to your comment but Salk was. All I ask is this. Instead of you and Nat Gertler deciding on this, let some other non biased editors decide. You both have seem to have made up your minds a long time ago so either let someone impartial decide and recuse yourselves or you can continue with your excuse of being falsely accused of bias and not hurling insults. Meat puppet is an insult. I would also like to see this discussion a neutral and accurate presentation of topics. The truth of the matter is has not been. Maybe its the Chicago in me but not letting me post my comments and calling me names is not neutral. You can argue that to you pass out. I think the article warrants consideration, its notable, that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. It is my opinion and my opinion alone. You and Nat can come up with 101 excuses as to you are impartial but your comments speak for themselves. See: Common Sense. Let all the editors decide, this is childish and undermines Wikipedia. That's really all I want. I am no meat puppet nor have been recruited. I think the article with revision is worthy of Wikipedia. Now lets see if I am allowed to post this. Gibco65 ( talk) 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Alright I did take it as an insult but the thing that started my attitude was the fact it was pointed out that Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Evidently it might be the rules per say but it was edited on to comment exactly 20 minutes after I posted. To me that meant Nat was watching this AFD at the time. I personally did not think it was relevant hence my feeling that there was bias. Let me perfectly honest it regards to last night and the BS that transpired. I was not asked to write anything by anyone. I wrote what I wrote because it was my honest opinion. I did stumble upon it on the internet. I know that it meets the following criteria:
I Emailed Wikipedia as to how to have my voice heard on this matter. They Emailed me back and told me how. I did this on my own. I wrote my reasons why the article is worthy and it seemed to me that since there were already snide comments, that they were acceptable. Then Bam within 20 minutes "Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD." Does that really make difference? At sometime everybody has to make a first contribution. It came from an editor and I really thought you were editors to help Wikipedia meet its guidelines and not to be outright biased. I was wrong and respect your right to vote and then add your comments. You don't have to be biased or rude about it though and that is the way you came across. Basically if the article needs editing to meet guidelines, you are editors. Help by offering your expertise in editing. I did have an edit conflict but think about it; if you had just butted heads with editors and all of a sudden you could not comment, you would think the same. I would not butt heads with some with horns. Nat Gertler : I did not realize that pointing out that someone has never commented before was a Wikipedia rule. To me it seemed like you were smarmy and just had to point out that I was commenting for the first time on something I feel is Wikipedia worthy. Yes I have strong feelings about this just as you guys do. Its just it seemed to me that you being in a position to offer advice on to edit the article in question was pretty much what I had read on the internet many times. Most of the editors are strongly biased and what happened last night let me to believe that. I apologize for getting extremely personal in my attacks against you, I was out of line. I was called a meat puppet. To me that was an outright insult but now I realize that it is phrase that editors use. For the record, I do not like puppets and eat very little meat. Seriously I know them as basically a punk band. To be called a meat puppet was akin to being called a punk. In closing I think the article with some editing should stay. That is my opinion and mine alone. Gibco65 ( talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
So what we are left with is:
TLDR summary-- Dean Andrew Kantis is mostly known in specific circles for his opposition to LASIK. His notability to a general audience is limited to media coverage of a petition to the FDA. The article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, and there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss him in with significant coverage. A few sentences on the LASIK page would be appropriate, stating that a petition was submitted to the FDA, and with the background "an Anti-LASIK campaigner". I have not looked in detail at the LASIK page, but there appears to be undue weight given to anti-LASIK content. The creator of this page also has edited the LASIK page, which may indicate sourcing problems there too. Lesion ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
While I personally cannot stand "celebrity doctors" there are many who have their own Wikipedia pages. A lot of self serving pages: I know this falls under WP:OSE but I will show an example however irrelevant it might be. Dan Reinstein: He is known for one thing; he was slightly involved in the development of the now obsolete Artemis scanner. The rest of his article is basically fluff and is mostly a covert ad for The London Vision Clinic which he owns. His involvement with Carl Zeiss Meditec is overstated but verifiable. He may have 97 Peer related publications but they are mostly from other people with his comments added on. This is verifiable hence proper but not necessary fully truthful. Laser blended vision is another name for mono vision and his jazz performances consist of a talented jazz band playing, him playing sax, getting out of breath and then leaning on things as other musicians play. I have seen this first hand. That does not meet the burden of proof for AfD but I cannot site YouTube as a reference. To me it seems that verifiability is much more important then the truth as I read it. Does he plays saxophone? Is laser blended vision the same as mono vision? Yes and it is verifiable. Does he play well IMO or for a whole piece? No, also verifiable but left out of his article. While this falls under a totally different category I am basically stating the complete opposite side of this discussion but one that has been brought up before. Celebrity doctors. This is not so much a comment as to why one article is better then another. It goes to whether an article is Noteworthy yet in the previous article nobody calls for AfD. It just that it appears that Reinsteins article is professionally written but is the same thing just opposite sides. If you pick through it, the references should be thoroughly checked and so should most of what is stated in the article. Is it most of it verifiable? Questionable. Is it truthful? No because of the old lying through omission thing but all it has to meet is verifiability and worthiness. Is this a legitimate point under Wikipedia rules? Perhaps. Why? because one article was written with half truths professionally by someone who knows Wikipedia guidelines and the one that is up for AfD was not. References to papers that are published and then someone throws their name on them IMO are not credible sources but are verifiable. Very much like the Dr. Oz point brought up. He did not do any the research for his TV show on Lasik. He did present it. Because of his celebrity status does that make him an expert on Lasik or was it self serving? If you look at his page it might also be considered for AfD. Regarding of whether an apple can kill you or whether homosexuals can be "cured", I am disturbed as to the truthfulness of these things and while one can be verified and the other is utter nonsense IMO can that statement be verified or is it just junk science?
QUESTION: All right one last one. I was not just making a statement based on comparison, I am trying to figure out what is suitability for notability and clarification. It was an example and was brought up earlier in the discussion, Dr. Oz. I'm am just making a comment here that is really just a question. Dr Oz. He claims that homosexuality is a disease based on pseudoscience on Wikipedia, even though this has been pointed out as a Controversy. What proof or truth is there to that? That goes toward verification. Controversy if pointed out constitutes verification even though it's not a truthful statement? His FDA claim about apple juice is another. Because the FDA says that the level of arsenic were above the amount allowed in water but not juice make his claim unverifiable. So what the FDA and consumer reports says is verifiable how? That is my question. The whole verifiability thing confuses me and really is my question. My question is what passes the "smell test" for verification. I know that truth is out but doesn't verification have to be based on truthfulness? It is a question and not a statement. The comparison was to see what passed the "smell" test and what didn't. I'm trying to learn. My comparison was based on two factors, one that Reinstein claims to be a leading authority on the correction of complications of laser eye surgery and has an article on Wikipedia so it is on the complete opposite end of the this discussion. Who made that statement? Many refractive surgeons would strongly disagree, I know a few. Now just because I said that does that meet verification or would I have to have said doctors publish their disagreement and then reference it? I would say he is very pro Lasik yet his article has some pretty sketchy verifications as per what I just wrote but yet passes the "smell" test hence is OK for Wikipedia. Dr. Oz who has been mentioned in this AfD. Same thing, some wild things said but no real evidence to back it up. What passes the "smell test"? You cannot have complete verification without truthfulness. That is my question as it pertains to this. Comparison to other articles was to constitute verification. I really don't know how you can have verification without truth. I ask you Lesion to help me with this being that you are much more familiar with this and especially on medical issues. While this really has nothing to do with this discussion please help me understand my dilemma. In medicine others cannot verify your results if you are not truthful or in any science for that matter. I need to know how something can be verified with a lie if you will. Truthfulness has to be considered in verification or the article in is invalid.
The result was delete. Black Kite ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:ORG. Eighteither ( talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete, There is no any reliable information in this article, no facts which would be verified by RS, sheer falsification and original researches of the writers of this article. Almost all of the facts in this article absurd results of original research. But there are no reliable sources nor in the Armenian, nor in English about that "symbol". -- Δαβίδ ( talk) 17:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history
https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history
and my talk page
commons:User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP_vandalism
He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Commons:Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal. No have matter for discussion.
Vahram Mekhitarian ( talk) 04:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Maybe you should try to give time to that user, and not delete everything he adds? Have you ever tried to use TalkPage of the article? Хаченци ( talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC) replyBecause the user consistently adding here OR text
It's not about what you know or what you want. It's about what you're allowed to do and what you aren't. You should assume that other users do not have bad goals while editing WP, unless otherwise proven. What you're doing is provocating an EW and then complaining to admins. You never even tried to use the Talk Page, before starting an edit war. That's something you should have done. If you beleive that something is nonsense, it does not mean that it really is.And I'm not going to leave that noncense here, because I know what that user is tring to prove here-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is completely different discussion on Russian WP. And the Russian WP article is clearly something which one should bring as an example, since there are 30 sources there and almost every claim is supported by several sources. Хаченци ( talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC) replyThe same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.
Keep: After extensively reviewing the article and doing my own research, I'm convinced that this is a significant and notable component in the symbolic identity of the Armenian people. I think this article could use a little bit of expansion with the help of foreign language sources, since I believe that most of the information pertaining to the Armenian eternity symbol is found within them. Above all, the symbol is definitely notable and highlights an important part of the Armenian identity through architecture, visual arts, and other stylized motifs. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I added some sources, to show how often it is used in Armenia, in culture and official symbolics. All given sources refer to the same symbol, under the same name 'sign of eternity' (or 'symbol of eternity'). Хаченци ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Enormous puff piece. Individual colleges are rarely notable by our standards, and I don't see any reason (besides the unverified and inflated claims made in the article) to believe differently about this one. Drmies ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Melilla. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
barely notable location Indiasummer95 ( talk) 20:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Mecklenburg County Public Schools. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability, no independent sources, nothing but routine local coverage found via Google News. Was prodded, prod removed by The Whispering Wind with an edit summary of "no WP:BEFORE consideration of a merge or redirect". Well, absent third-party sources there's no content to merge, and we don't have an article on the school district, so there's nothing to redirect or merge to. The Chase City, Virginia article has no relevant content and would not be a helpful target for a redirect. Huon ( talk) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Early close, snow delete. Yunshui 雲 水 12:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:GNG, unsourced and google searches produce no results ( [14], [15]). AldezD ( talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable slang. This isn't urban dictionary. Googled the phrase and didn't find anything of substance. Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
per not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NCYC; my Google search found nothing, granted it did ask me "did you mean ..." several variations of the name tat, but nevertheless proved nothing ... based on this article, he does not appear to have appeared in requisite events or have finished on the podium, and ergo, I fail to see his notability Go Phightins ! 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Not well-defined scope (who says what is "important", or why "cardiology trials" is a unified encyclopediac topic). No evidence that these trials are actually high quality (many refs look like primary research, not WP:MEDRS). Inbound links make it look like a dumping ground for refs from other articles and/or implication that the number of refs itself on some topic might be significant (but again the list is cherry-picked with no defined inclusion criteria or scope). Tagged for these concerns for 9 months, nobody seems to care except to remove the tags and to pile in more refs. DMacks ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is quite short and I added most of the sources myself. In addition, most of the impact Burbacher's research has had has been through a single study (the EHP study). In my view, Burbacher does not meet WP:PROF. Jinkinson ( talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy_Powers
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable organization. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable individual. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
No attempt to create an article. Just a dump of various random info. Probably mostly copyvio. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Black Kite ( talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 09:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note the multitude of tags: no sources verify that this outfit is notable by our standards (GNG or CORP). Even if all the claims in the article are true, booking concerts for a few notable bands does not make for notability. Drmies ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. Black Kite ( talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Much as I'd hate to get rid of this (as I'm technically a part of this program), I can't find evidence of notability for it. All sources in the article are primary, a basic Google search comes up with nothing outside of USC material, and a GNews search comes up with only passing mentions (e.g. "Kathy Smith, the head of the John C. Hench Division of Animation and Digital Arts" type mentions). Redirect to the broader USC School of Cinematic Arts is possible, but the current title isn't IMO specific enough to point directly to USC, so that should really only be done if a merge is decided on. Ansh 6 6 6 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. AS it already has an entry at the target I have redirected; any further information may be merged across. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This does not establish notability independent of Marvel through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No deletion rationale has been provided by nominator or anyone since. — Tom Morris ( talk) 09:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Basket Feudalist 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY is an issue here. Basket Feudalist 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was closed, wrong forum. Any requests to delete just the talk page of an article, without requesting the deletion of the article itself, should be directed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP Basket Feudalist 11:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Not notable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Google search has no hits for RSes partially because the term has another meaning. Nothing at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to
Fenton, Michigan delete and salt. Consensus is that this should not be an individual article (through deletion, merging or redirecting); the chosen result is to Redirect to
Fenton, Michigan and let editors merge out any relevant content from this title's history; it will also be salted for a year per request to avoid repeated recreation. :) ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉
06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
G4 declined for no reason. Blatant advertising for a non-notable strip mall. The only sources are the individual websites of the companies in it, a couple real estate listings on Loopnet, and a fansite about drive-in theaters. No secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Sources do not support notability. Searched and did not find any on first five Google pages. One problem is that there are two bands with this name and the 1960s band is notable. The other problem is that the term is general and I'm getting completely unrelated hits when searching for Mythology (band). Walter Görlitz ( talk) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The page seems to be promotion, possibly self-promotion (breaking WP:COI and WP:SPAM). The main editor to the page has only contributed to this article. It's a mod that is unreleased and currently unpopular. -- Rhain1999 ( talk to me) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. recreated content. Rs chen 7754 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Adrian Visby, Adrian Visby (musician), Adrian.Visby, Adrian Visby (artist), Adrian Visby (activist), Adrian Visby (producer/musician/engineer), Adrian Visby (producer/musician), Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Boyd, Adrian Voyd, Cabalaza Music, Cabalaza Republic, The Fragile v4, Heavenade, Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby), LadyDelay, Civilexit? and more. Not notable. Delete, salt, scorch, ban. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD ( talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD ( talk) 20:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G12 as unambigous copyright infringement. -- みんな空の下 ( トーク) (non-admin closure) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable community radio station lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix ( talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite ( talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Previous article on the subject was deleted and this one was recreated out-of-process. Seems to me to fail WP:CORP with apologies for the WP:FRINGE issues involved where WP:ONEEVENT coverage seems to have happened as a part of various "News of the Weird" segments. It is clear that this organization has not yet received the prominent notice necessary for it to be covered in Wikipedia. It's just a club for cranks and there are a few webpages and off-handed mentions of it in obscure outfits. jps ( talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Here are some other independent/mainstream references to the NPA, with neutral or derogatory descriptions of what it is and what it does. Many of these references are short, so the question becomes if they are enough to cause someone to turn to Wikipedia to find out about the organization.
Each editor that reviews Wertheim's books, and articles, and then descibes NPA in the review, is making an independent decision that the *topic* is notable. In terms of whether the group is composed of cranks or geniuses, they are relying on Wertheim. But not whether it's of interest to them or their readers. They decide this for themselves.
More examples:
There are a number of blogs with neutral or skeptical takes on NPA. These are of course not reliable sources, but can serve of evidence of notability.
Here is a press release from NPA. I could certainly imagine someone would like to look NPA up on Wikipedia after seeing this, since Wikipedia has a much better record of neutrality than press releases.
From WP:NOTE. See WP:GNG footnote #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." That is exactly the case here with different sources covering the same Wertheim sources and even using the same quotes from it. At best they count as a single source.
The Scientist is a solid source as far as I can tell. The book reviews are about the book not the organization. Complicated by the fact the book author is a member of the organization (in terms of using these sources for the org's notability vs. the book's notability). The Blogs don't count towards notability. Basically we have one source from 1995 The Scientist, then Wertheim and everything that originates from Wertheim, which I think at best counts as a single source - so two good sources total. Beyond that, there is apparently now enough sourcing to support an article for Physics on the Fringe [current redirect] by Margaret Wertheim, since multiple book reviews in very high quality sources make the book notable under WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Wertheim's book counts towards notability, despite the fact she is a member of NPA. When a member of a group writes about that group, notability depends very much on the extent that the goals of the person and the group are aligned. So when the president of a group writes about the group, it's presumably aligned and not notable. But when Edward Snowden wrote about the NSA's PRISM program, it was extremely notable, even though he was a member/employee of the NSA. In fact it was much more notable, and would not have been believed had he not been a member. Likewise criticism of a political party is much more notable if it comes from a party member, claims of unethical behavior by a company are more notable if made by an employee, and so on. So membership in a group is not a ban on notability; it also depends (strongly) on the content of the work. Reading Wertheim's material, she is sympathetic to the NPA but her goal is to describe the organization, not promote it. Despite her membership, she herself does not believe the primary tenet of NPA, namely that modern physics is wrong. The reviews reinforce this view; even the ones that think she is too charitable towards the NPA do not believe she holds this belief because she thinks the NPA is right - she thinks it is valuable even though it is founded on an incorrect premise. So her book (and articles) definitely count as notable references to NPA. LouScheffer ( talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 06:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
This article has been speedily deleted four times, most recently today, on the grounds of promotion or non-notability. Can we get a final declaration of this finding, and perhaps salt the article? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Fails notability; no independent reliable sources are cited in the article, and Google Books turns up no relevant results. I couldn't find any significant third-party coverage from Google web search, either. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While participation is low in this twenty day old AfD the consensus around the lack of referencing is clear. — Spaceman Spiff 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix ( talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Black Kite ( talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This article is an orgy of original research.
"Eigenclass" is a term used among Ruby developers to describe the shim class created internally to support per-instance methods. Even within Ruby, it's not a core concept that's essential to grasp in order to be able to use or reason about the language. The Ruby article mentions the pattern in passing by its pragmatic, unfancy name: singleton methods.
This article gives the false impression that this language-specific feature (AFAICT, even Smalltalk has no built-in support for it) is an established topic in computer science.
The vast bulk of the article is unreferenced. Those references that do exist fall into three categories a) links to Ruby documentation b) links to articles that don't mention "eigenclass" or "eigenclass model" in any way and c) links to a single non-notable site that appears to contain the same material as the article.
chocolateboy ( talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC) reply