Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 18

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• guessing and deducing
  .

Even if you ignore the pervasive original research, this is still a

WP:AVOIDSPLITs

.

See this AFD for similar discussion and reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Instead of nominating this article here, you should at last have tried to fix the article. After all, problems with sourcing and/or OR can and should be addressed by editing and
  WP:WAF does not apply because as a part of the MoS it describes how to write about fictional topics not whether to do it. As for linking to another AFD, remember that every article should be based on its merits. Regards SoWhy 17:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The problem is deeper than the one reference I mentioned. I have explained how

WP:PLOT says articles "should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents" and "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". This article has no information about the reception or significance of the chronology. The sources are almost all primary in nature, and provide no secondary information to help this meet policy, making it impossible to fix the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, the deletion nom is confused both about this being nothing but OR and about this being nothing but plot summary. What this is, fundamentally, is an index of articles about notable fictional works, organized by the
  setting isn't even plot either, but rather the context (time and place) in which the plot unfolds. Given that Doctor Who is a show about a man who travels without limitation through time and space, indexing the stories by what time they are set makes perfect sense. The original concept of the show was actually for it to be more educational rather than sci-fi/fantasy through having the Doctor visit the past, and there are still many episodes in which the Doctor meets real historical figures or visits real periods in history. The Doctor also has repeatedly revisited the same fictional future settings, making it natural to list such stories together for having that shared setting. And we do it for all works even outside of a shared franchise: see subcats of Category:Works by setting.
  Regarding the OR claim, I'd have some objections if this attempted to squeeze this into a coherent narrative, given that continuity has never been the show's strong suit and via time travel the characters continually rewrite history anyway. But the setting of a particular episode is in most instances going to be easily verifiable, even if only from the episode itself without any interpretation necessary: the Doctor often declares out loud what time they have traveled to, or the story is set in a clearly identifiable period of history, such as when Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, days before the destruction of Pompeii, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, or the Moon landing. In many cases as well, there will be ample secondary sources confirming the episode's setting even if those aren't currently cited in this chronology. So it's not acceptable to just wave our hands and call everything OR when much of this is easily verifiable. You have to do the work. If there is a particular listing that is inaccurate or cannot be verified from any source, then correct it or remove it only after the sources have been checked. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Verifiable dates are used whenever there is one. "Not all of these stories have a possible date attached to them" refers to ones which are not given a date in the article because the episode has no indicators or statements to that effect. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with respect to the first AfD: I was that nominator and it was closed as a very conditional keep. There, SilkTork noted that the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia without secondary sources, and also went through the article and found that of 184 sources, all but one was original research by a Wikipedia article. That has ballooned to 298 sources, with a few token URLs trying to paint a thin veneer of legitimacy on an article which still remains, two years after that AfD, unsuitable for Wikipedia (but maybe an interesting media studies research topic or a good Wikia page). Such an article will always fail our core policies, and as such it shouldn't be an article. There are all these wishy-washy platitudes about not demolishing houses during their construction (which, if you ask me, is a stupid analogy, but there you go), but this is a shanty town, not a row of bricks on top of a foundation. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sourced to 300
  plot recap and this one is designed to be nothing but a plot recap. We have two lists about the same thing, and this list fails three core policies. Dzlife (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is incorrect to state that sourcing something to a primary source is necessarily OR. Per
    List of Doctor Who serials, that list does not provide information about the setting, which makes this list complementary, not redundant. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - With all due respect to
  WP:SYNTH are rife. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - on the grounds of synthesis, lack of sourcing that shows the topic is notable (as opposed to interesting to a reader) and has received coverage in reliable sources. Compounded by a fictional setting where we cannot assume that a writer means that real-world event A takes place on the same date in-universe. When the notes have statements like "placing Skaro's destruction in either c. 963 or c. 2963 (alternatively, the Doctor could mean that the Black Dalek would take a thousand years to travel back to Skaro from Earth) " then its a case of too much speculation on behalf of editors, and not enough sourcing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "topic" is Doctor Who. This should just be renamed to List of Doctor Who serials by setting, because fundamentally that's all it is. All of your other comments are fixable problems and have already been addressed above. If a setting proves unverifiable, it can be removed, but as I have repeatedly demonstrated above, the settings of many if not most are easily verifiable. Please do read the other comments in an AFD before you post a !vote, because when you post arguments that have already been responded to but do not address that response, it does not advance the discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're fixable problems then why haven't the been fixed in the twenty months that have passed since the original AFD? This only avoided deletion then as an assumption of good faith that the issues raised would be addressed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding trite, it doesn't matter:

WP:DEADLINE. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect, I don't believe that means an unsuitable article should exist indefinitely on the chance that it might be improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that whether an article is suitable is a completely separate question from whether it has been improved. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been going the other way from having its issues addressed; indeed, the amount of original research has essentially ballooned since the last AfD. To go back to the famous house analogy: this isn't a budding two up two down, this is a massive shanty town. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as content fork. If this really needs to be done, add a setting column to List of Doctor Who Serials.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I don't see how the addition of a setting column can be done cleanly given the content of that list, nor would it be sortable so as to organize the serials by setting as this does. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The content of the article is
  appropriate topics for lists. Jfgslo (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I do not see how this is useful at all. you can put dates of when a story is set in the story articles themselves, why do you need an article of where they lie in relation to each other? Add the fact that stories don't always have clear dates (leading to completely baseless speculation) and there is really no point to this at all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The page provides good information for the complex timeline of the series. Strong keep. 131.107.0.82 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SoWhy and postdlf. Arithmetic is not original research, and it is not original research to note that a series is set in the last days of Pompei, the early days of the London Blitz, or other specific historical points, and to note what years those historical events correspond to. That the episode is set in such a specific time is usually verifiable from BBC summaries, as well as from the drama itself. Which of the 11 Doctors appeared in an episode and when it aired are not original research. The time course of article improvement ios not a basis for deletion, since Wikipedia is a work in progress and not on deadline. The editing process can removce entries based on conjecture. Edison (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not wrong to say that basic deductions, such as The Fires of Pompeii, takes place in AD 79. But this article, on occasion, makes deductions based on props or scenery which may not even support the hypothesis; for example, an episode is dated to the "warm season" of 1941 because the trees are green. But it doesn't take into account that The Sarah Jane Adventures probably filmed in June. After all, if it wasn't for a cold snap, there wouldn't be dialogue in "Planet of the Dead" about how a spaceship keeps itself cool (that's reliably sourced, by the way). Too much of the article relies on original research. Wikipedia is a work in progress, yes, but if a building inspector tells you that your bricks are made out of mud and need replacing, you actually use bricks, not mashed potatoes. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very notable television show, the list compiled is extensive and well cited, a very useful tool for anyone who wants to know more about the show, I have tagged this article for rescue, to generate more opinions, I hope
  WP:Snow will fall. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - this long TV show is sui generis in its confusing time travel, so a chronology is especially useful for our core readerships of students. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article is actually sus generis - a mess with editor suppositions and reflections standing in lieu of proper referencing for events relationships between events. And for the most part, that the Doctor visited 19th Century London in the nth season of the series is not linked to his visits to 16th Century London in the m-th and l-th season - the order of episode settings is not of direct relevance for all bar the most recent "timey-wimey" seasons. And those should be discussed in the context of the season as a whole. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem you're having is with viewing this as an attempt at a continuous narrative, basically an in-universe continuity reordered by calendar year rather than the Doctor's personal timeline that the show (usually) follows. Which would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, and OR, I agree. And maybe that's how this was initially conceived, and the title certainly implies that, but it's not what this is fated to be and it's not what the bulk of its information is. As I've characterized it, and as I plan on retitling it after this AFD is closed, it's a List of Doctor Who serials by setting. It is useful to know which stories were set during WWII, which ones were set during the Middle Ages, etc., for the same reason it is to organize any works by shared setting even when they're not even part of the same franchise as these are (see Category:Works by setting), just because they address similar subject matter, not because they are connected within a single fictional narrative. Some episodes with shared settings featured the same Doctor and were direct continuations of one another. Other stories were broadcast decades apart with different Doctors and without regard to continuity, but even that disconnection is useful information, contrasting perhaps how a First Doctor story produced during the 1960s portrayed Ancient Rome compared to a Tenth Doctor story produced during the 2000s. And one can also clearly see which settings the show has not yet depicted... Again, to the extent this list deviates from such a straightforward description and organization of setting, and/or relies upon OR to assert a date not supported by the episode itself or any source commenting on it, it should and can be fixed. We do not delete articles because of fixable problems, no matter how hard it might be to fix those problems nor how slow those problems are being addressed. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that anyone else would have gotten the pun of a malapropism of himself and swine. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as entertaining as the article may be, the (largely assumed) detailed in-universe chronology of the series is largely
  UNIT dating controversy, which are supported by secondary sources. The amount of effort editors have put into the article is also not a basis for maintaining an article. Therefore, I have to say, Delete. (There is a Doctor Who Wiki for this kind of thing anyway.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The sources are adequate to establish notability per
  WP:LISTN. And here's another one: Doctor Who: A History of the Universe - "the complete timeline of the Doctor Who universe, from Event One to the universe's final destruction billions of years in the future." Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Most of my points are stated above; the core problem is that we don't delete articles with fixable problems - we fix them. Col. Warden offers what appears to be an excellent source, and others are available as well. Yes, speculation and OR should be excised from the article, but there's much less of that here than my esteemed colleagues would have you believe. This is salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the use as a precedent of the AFD for the in-universe Star Trek Chronology is flawed, as many many more dates from Star Trek are pure speculation; Doctor Who, by its very structure, is much more closely tied to time and place. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons I said to keep it last year. This helps achieve a greater understanding of a clearly notable series. There are also references found to confirm the information is valid. Why should we have the same AFD over again? Seems like a waste of time. Consensus was keep, the reasons still valid then as they are now. And Wikipedia has no precedents, ever, never has, and never will. What the random group of people that showed up at a totally unrelated AFD decided, has no possible bearing to this one. Dream Focus 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: still a
  WP:SYNTHESIS. Only sources are the series itself, or commissioned works that generate a profit for those who made the series. What trivial mentions remain can be added to existing articles about the Doctor Who series. 74.198.9.153 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and improve. Highly notable show.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:18, 26 October 2011 (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. Materia; presented during the AfDestablishes clear ntoability, as judged by the consensus. And I agree, meets thee GNG, meets N:book, and a full NYT review of anything has gnerally been accepted as showing notability (whether a brief note there shows it is much more uncertain, but this is a full review). I'm a little surprised at the nom saying they countn't find that source. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divergent (book)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Contested PROD: Newly, no evidence of notability. Non-notable author. I looked through book notablily requirements and can't see any criteria that would apply. Suspect this has been deleted before. Eeekster (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non notable book, only recently published, and supposedly first of a trilogy. Unknown author. No significant coverage anywhere.--Dmol (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please don't delete- it's an up and coming book. Not trying to advertise, just getting it out there if someone's wondering about the book because there isn't much on it. This is important to the encyclopedia for this reason. There needs to be information about it that people have easy access to. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? The sharing of information? Also, "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]" This book fits this criteria. See the following links to these sources with Divergent as the subject (these sources are not affiliated with the book in any way: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/young-adult-books-divergent-by-veronica-roth.html; http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/2011/oct/10/divergent-veronica-roth-review?newsfeed=true. These are 2 sources, with the definition of multiple being "more than 1" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiple) World English Dictionary (Collins) multiple (ˈmʌltɪp ə l) — adj 1. having or involving more than one part, individual, etc: he had multiple injuries OR Medical Dictionary (Merriam Webster) mul·ti·ple definition Pronunciation: /ˈməl-tə-pəl/ Function: adj 1 : consisting of, including, or involving more than one < multiple births> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slagestee (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Slagestee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as per Slagestee. "up and coming" means not notable. "there isn't much on it" means not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Should I just delete and save the code for when it becomes more notable? Slagestee (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in

Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Sure it's a new book, and the article is badly written (not encyclopedic), and the author is an
  WP:SPA. But take a look at the references! It has been reviewed by the New York Times and the Guardian. (Oops, the Guardian removed that review as plagiarism. [26]) Not to mention Entertainment Weekly. Seems like some reliable sources have taken notice. Not bad for a first book, and one in the often-underreported Young Adult genre. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Has significant coverage in The Star (Malaysia) [27], The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, Ballina Shire Advocate, and The Wall Street Journal. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While I definitely have some
  WP:CRYSTAL issues, but the sources are notable enough that I don't see any reason to delete an article that will almost certainly be recreated after the book is released. Trusilver 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: The book actually was released, on 5/3/11.[28] --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, absolutely right. I was reading that same source but for some reason I read it as being next year. That's enough for me to knock the 'weak' off that keep. Trusilver 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have cleaned up the article, eliminated the fluff and added references to some of the reviews mentioned here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just noticed that the "Summary" section is a copyvio, lifted verbatim from many pages[29][30] and probably from the book's blurb. Should it be deleted, or tagged, or what? --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just removed the section until it can be rewritten. Copyvios need to be removed as soon as they are noticed. Trusilver 15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Topic passes
  WP:GNG with sources currently in the article— [31], [32]
  — and these sources:
  

• "Summit Signs Scribe for 'Divergent' Adaptation (Exclusive)." The Hollywood Reporter.
• "Book review: Divergent." Ballina Shire Advocate.
• "The Scary Future, the Embarrassing Past." The Wall Street Journal.
  

Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A NYT review plus the other things should be enough. NA1000, are you going to take credit for this one too? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cited reviews are far more than sufficient to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google news archive search for the title of the book and the name of the author reveals 26 results[33] The New York Times one at the top, plus other reliable sources which cover it. Please follow
  WP:BEFORE. And those that said it didn't meet GNG, in the future please actually check before just saying that. It doesn't take long to find sources for things like this. Dream Focus 16:26, 23 October 2011 (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. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Deskins

Casey Deskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Career minor-league player and minor-league coach who toes the notability threshold without crossing it. The only stint with the big-league club mentioned in the article (a claim which is unsourced) is as a video coordinator, and the last time I checked that is not a coaching position. I might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a longtime minor-league manager, but Deskins doesn't fall into that category either. Most of the sources I found were
  WP:GNG as far as I can tell. As always I can be persuaded to change my opinion. I must admit I am curious as to why Alexsautographs (talk · contribs) was willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt and !voted to keep it in 2009 and is now bringing it back to AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.. I've changed my mind about Casey since his last AFD. Spanneraol (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of notability – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (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

Pocahontas Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Fails

• Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools per established consensus for run of the mill middle schools. I removed an unreferenced section called "Cliques" that was full of the sort of nasty gossip that some middle school students enjoy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete - no evidence of notability e.g. not a blue ribbon school. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, the school received the Blue Ribbon award in 2006 (see here p. 45). Sailsbystars (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is established consensus that winning a Blue Ribbon award once is enough to make a middle school notable. Over 5000 schools have won that award. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets
  talk) 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am changing my vote to keep now that it is clear the school has won a blue ribbon award. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Winning a hokey pokey bureaucratic award (given to THOUSANDS of schools) does not constitute grounds for per se notability in opposition to clear and long-established precedent. These awards tend to be awarded to the schools of the wealthy (skewing encyclopedia content on a class basis). In addition this award is thoroughly American-centric — creating an exemption for American institutions not available to others around the world. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's also a terrible and largely unsourced stub, so nothing of import will be lost by deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - for this comment to have validity will you please explain why the sources available do meet that guideline?
  talk) 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools per long-standing consensus on primary schools. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:ORG. Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools as above per the standing procedure for non-primary schools. The Blue Ribbon award is about as notable and distinguished as junk mail. Trusilver 23:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There seems to be more news coverage then would normally be expected for a run-of-the-mill middle school, and a decent amount of the coverage is not that sort routine coverage a middle school would get just by virtue of existing within a community. While middle schools are not automatically notable, this one appears to pass the
  WP:GNG. Monty₈₄₅ 16:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment While precedent has been to delete or redirect articles like this, keep !voters are contending that this is an exceptional circumstance. It would be helpful if arguments to delete would attempt to explicitly refute these arguments instead of ignoring them (as if we are voting in booths, unaware of what others are saying.) causa sui (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Edison (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep In full agreence with User:Monty845. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree it does seem to get a lot of coverage. There is one news article appearing in the Google news archive search that says another school was modeled after it. Dream Focus 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - now added to an expanded page.
  talk) 02:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per Monty and others. The award clinches it for me, as that's a clear sign of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would be nice if people actually looked up the blue ribbon award before deciding it makes the school notable. The Blue Ribbon Award is almost routine, the award criteria is hilariously low. There are three elementary schools in the town where I live, four in the next town, going up one exit on the freeway there are three more. All ten of these schools have at some point been given the "Blue Ribbon Award". In order to get this award, all the school needs to do is show an improving trend in test scores which put the school in the top 40% for the state. Plus... once a school gets the award, they are forever able to call themselves a "Blue Ribbon School". So seriously... are you all HONESTLY suggesting that an award which HALF of all elementary schools have is enough to make it notable? Trusilver 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a few weeks since someone called me an idiot, so thank you for that. I don't think the award means that the school is notable. But it is a piece of the puzzle. What I said was that the award had clinched it for me - it pushed me from a borderline weak keep to a keep. The point Monty made, and the one that I echoed in my comment, was that there seemed to be more coverage of this school than other schools of its type - and that itself is sufficient to keep. The award added to that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:57, 26 October 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Boats

Clyde Boats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely unsourced. No assertion of notability. Searches at the Center for Wooden Boats and WoodenBoat Magazine come up blank. Elen of the Roads came up with this link that suggests that the primary contributor sourced the whole thing to interviews with his mother, who worked for the company for 20 years. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability in article, no sources found except the non-
  WP:ORG. I'm quite surprised that Elen of the Roads declined the speedy, in fact. Yunshui (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The article is charming, personal, and well-written, (doesn't that almost make it notable?!) but nothing like a WP article. It could be rescued by someone who has access to verifiable facts about Clyde Boats. I wish I did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I declined the speedy - in the (probably forlorn) hope that someone out there has access to back copies of some small wooden boat hobby magazine or something, with evidence of notability within that community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, i think you were right to decline the speedy, as the article does make a number of (unsourced) assertions of the notability of the subject. whether it's notable isn't clear to me yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references, fails
  WP:N. A search turns up lots of sources, all mirrors of this article! - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All the search results for "Clyde Boats" seem to be talking about old steamer boats, small fishing boats that carry five men, boats that are used to stop rum runners, and other results. I'll keep looking, but its hard to find any mention at all, if it does exist, with so many wrong hits to sort through. Dream Focus 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book titled Lake Orion By James E. Ingram, Lori Grove mentions it briefly[36] "In the distance, a smaller motorboat travels past, which was likely a Clyde outboard runabout then common on Lake Orion. Their molded plywood hulls were built by fishermen in Nova Scotia during the winter and shipped to dealers like Clyde Boats in nearby Detroid." So, these were common on that lake in their time. Dream Focus 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the sources are talking about Clyde puffers, which are notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[37] here they are in a Michigan manufacturers' directory, but that's all I can find. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NeutralKeep - This might be one of those sad cases where a subject is in fact notable, but that notability cannot be verified (an unusual inversion from the usual order of things on Wikipedia!). Clearly Cyde Boats were popular runabouts way back when, but are more or less forgotten now. Were that the information sources we had now always available! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well, Elen of the Roads and others have found books and photos on the web of Clyde Boats; we are agreed the article is notable and well-written, and we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability. Could we perhaps use an image of the 16-foot Clyde boat from the Bone Yard Boats site with a NFUR? But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability" I'm not seeing this. We've got a forum post (not RS), a passing mention in Ingram's Lake Orion, a directory listing (not RS) and a couple of photos. I'm sorry, but I can't see how these imply notability. Existence is verifiable, but

ITEXISTS is not an argument for retention. Yunshui (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nor are we arguing that. With The Bushranger, I believe the article is clearly notable, and the challenge has been to verify, or at least show capability of verification (e.g. by visiting public libraries and other archives in Michigan...); since we agree on existence, the article should not be deleted. There will be scope for improving it and gathering further evidence and images thereafter, which will take time and effort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being a little dense, but I really cannot see anything in the article that makes a case for notability. According to

I like it aren't arguments for retention. Yunshui (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Neutral - or, keep but only as a stub. We apparently have reliable evidence that the company existed, in Detroit, and made small wooden outboard motorboats with hulls from Nova Scotia. Adjusting for the fact that it's sometimes hard to find material (particularly on line) about things that passed from existence decades ago, I could be persuaded that the limited RSs we have are sufficient to establish basic notability; but the rest of the article is either the personal reminiscence of the author's mother or unreliably sourced and hasn't any place here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

comment—i managed to lay my hands on an actual paper copy of Classic American runabouts: wood boats, mentioned in the further reading section of the article. sadly, it mentions neither the company nor Clyde Rumney. so there's no failure of search in google books there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here as far as significant coverage in reliable sources goes. Hardly surprising for what was little more than a local or regional boatbuilder. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see passing references, and mention in an online boat sales site. Nothing so far to satisfy
  WP:ORG. Not every small business is notable. Edison (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree thoroughly with what is said above, But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk)--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just barely enough, but barely enough=enough. I wouldn't have said keep at the earlier state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Didn't comment before, but yeah, its fine. There is no valid reason to eliminate this article. Hard to find sources from that time period that are available online, but some mentions here and there do exist. Remember the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, should be followed, and I doubt they were created to eliminate articles like this. Dream Focus 02:40, 25 October 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2-plan project management software

2-plan project management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I could not find significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources online. Of the sources provided, the Internet Scout Project seems to be independent and reliable, however it is a brief description of the software. The rest are either not what we would consider RS, or in the case of Softpedia's 100% Clean Award, somewhat meaningless. wctaiwan (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Reconsider for Speedy Keep

May I ask for consideration due to the following:

1. Gizmo's Freeware is the Top 100 Websites of 2010 according to

2. Elizabeth Harrin's "A Girl's Guide to Project Management" is Computer_Weekly's Blogger of 2010. It is likewise cited as the 6th reference in AceProject and 3rd reference in ConceptDraw Project among others.

3. Softpedia and SourceForge are usually cited as references in several Wikipedia articles.

4. According to the Google Adwords Keyword Tool, "2-plan" has 823,000 global monthly searches.

GuterTag (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  More from the "project management" swamp. Referenced only to trade blogs and Wikis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Moreover, the source[38] material in question says it “delivers practical Web-based information and software solutions for educators, librarians and researchers” through a research team of “academics and professionals from Library Science and Computer Science, along with graduate and undergraduate students studying the sciences, social sciences and humanities”. In short, the source claims that it does not publish random or run-of-the-mill (

WP:MILL

) information. They have certainly noticed and selected the subject of the article for a purpose with a set criteria.

The article is verifiable (

WP:IRS

, Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. The article passes both criteria on direct support and appropriate claims.

• WP:SOURCES
  says that the author of the source can affect reliability.

- For example, Elizabeth Harrin (

WP:SIGCOV

), it addressed the article directly in detail. Maybe not so comprehensively, but not in passing either as a phrase in one sentence.

If you also check “harrin elizabeth” on Google Scholar, you will see several of her scholarly works that relate to project management including the book earlier mentioned.

If the issue is about popularity because of what the title infers from this referenced source, then please allow me more time as I’ve just been recently browsing through a lot of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays on how to go about this AfD. Many of these remain unclear to me. But I’m learning from the experience.

- The assertion that Softpedia’s Award is somewhat meaningless will appear to be valid at first. But when we consider the context that this was about free software, then the award turns into a meaningful and useful information. It serves Wikipedia readers’ quest for information and more.

Let me explain. The “No Spyware. No Adware. No Viruses.” Award on a free software is no different from the policies of a free, online

WP:VANDAL

policies/guidelines make Wikipedia what it is today through the hard work of many Wikipedians.

Softpedia is also used by others (

WP:USEBYOTHERS

) as source with notable Wikipedia articles in project management. What is most important also is that aside from having editorial oversight on what gets published on this source, it uses both humans and software to check for ads, spam, adverts, vandals and other malware just like Wikipedia. In a way, the Softpedia Award is meaningful in the proper context. The award is also notable because most free software has adware. Softpedia directly addressed the article in a very meaningful and useful way. This award is not trivial. It serves a purpose/function and is not readily given to anyone.

Per Diderot (Encyclopedia), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge around the globe to render a service to the human race. Keeping this article improves Wikipedia as it gives readers alternative notable information on a topic which is dominated by commercial software.

Present circumstances indicate that people are now looking for free alternatives. When readers have a choice today between a commercial encyclopedia and Wikipedia, most readers would rely on Wikipedia. I think the present circumstances are also one of the reasons why the subject of this article is being noticed by reliable sources.

If we can give Wikipedia readers several choices on free notable project management software where they can easily compare each one under the standards and close scrutiny of Wikipedians, I guess Wikipedia would have rendered an excellent service in the topic area.

Thank you.

GuterTag (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Hi. The Gizmo's Freeware review is from Gizmo's Hot Finds Editor Robert Schifreen.
  WP:GNG
  , the review is very different from Elizabeth Harrin's. Likewise, Gizmo's is a notable source with a PC Magazine Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award.

Hemant Saxena also has another review at the The Windows Club. It is significantly different from the two reviews previously cited here. If you search for "hemant saxena" using Google scholar, you will also see that this author has a published work in biotechnology. This is not surprising as 2-plan is purported to be a free project management software for knowledge professionals.

Per

WP:SOURCES

guidelines multiple already?

GuterTag (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reviews are not the same thing as notability. WP is not a product catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  WP:NOTCATALOG essentially states that: Sales catalogs. Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors. The reviews did not in any way mentioned prices nor did the article. GuterTag (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep on the contrary, product reviews are the principal sort of substantial coverage that makes for notability under the GNG. Certainly there's never been a statement otherwise. Rather, the question normally is whether the reviews are substantial,and not mere mentions. There are often borderline cases, but here , the Gizmo's review certain is substantial and entirely devoted to this subject, not just a product comparison or a one=paragraph listing. Though I had not previously heard of it, is seems to be an independent source (another frequent objection that is not relevant here.) The PM Software review (more exactly liked to at [40] is also substantial and independent. The Girl's Guide review, however, is unsubstantial and would not by itself show notability. But the two major reviews are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I discounted the the Gizmo's review is that the website appears to be a tech enthusiast blog and thus does not satisfy our standard for reliable sources. I agree this is debatable—the author of the review can be traced, and the site's about section contains the name of the operator. However, I tend to judge sources by their nature, and as such I feel the editorial control and level of professionalism here are below what we look for (the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write). wctaiwan (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think this is not about whether you like the sources or not, or you feel that the journalists, professionals and academics behind these are not good enough according to your personal standard of editorial control and level of professionalism. The fact still remains that these are independent professionals with several published works that are cited in the academe and that the websites that they write for have notable awards in the IT industry. Those in the academe and IT industry think that these sources are good enough. The minimum requirement per
  WP:SIGCOV states that: Significant coverage means that 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. Harrin's work on the subject might not be a substantial mention but it isn't trivial either. Schifreen directly addressed the subject. The Internet Scout Project, a .edu site, created a web page directly devoted to the subject with enough information to help researchers and educators determine if the subject will be suitable to their requirements. The question is, was the Wikipedia core content policies complied with or not per your rationale for the nomination? GuterTag (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is to discuss why this article's sources are reliable and answer the nom's issues on the professionalism of the sources' authors.

-Gizmo's Review as a reliable source per

WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check the British Computer Society

. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press. Where the publisher of the source affects reliability, please consider that Gizmo's Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award is from PC Magazine. PC Magazine is a well known institution in the computer industry that general public computer and software buyers read. The award is also notable considering that hundreds of thousands of new websites are created yearly. Assuming that only 100,000 new websites are created in a given year, the top 100 is less than 1% of all new websites.

-Girl's Guide as a reliable source per

WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check her works here, here, here, and here

for the British Computer Society. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press.

-Softpedia as a reliable source. Softpedia has a current Alexa rank of 427. 2.38 million unique visitors relied on the reputation for integrity of Softpedia in September 2010.

-The University of Wisconsin as a reliable source for its Internet Scout Project. This university ranks No. 41 for 2011 among all universities in the world. Thank you. GuterTag (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If its considered a reliable source, then its reviews for the software confirm notability. This has reliable sources reviewing it. [41] covers it, and her awards and recognition by reliable sources makes her a reliable source[42]. You can use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss any sources to determine if they are reliable or not. Dream Focus 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was wondering what if the editor made the review himself? Was there an editorial control then? What if the editor happens to be Mr. Robert Schifreen? He's well known in IT with historic, technical and legal importance. He's recognized in a reputable university press. I can't see any reason why this source is not reliable. I think this one has enough reliable sources. And Mr Schifreen writing a review of this? Wow. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InnoMed PredTox

InnoMed PredTox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A group of researchers developed a project, obtained funding for it, did the work, and produced some publications. Nothing out of the ordinary here. No independent sources, does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Provided references clearly satisfy
  WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If the references would satisfy GNG, I'd vote keep, too. As far as I can see, they don't, however. --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable in either a general or scientific sense. The consortium gets minimal mention at Google News and at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly you define 'minimal'? Because search results you provided (particularly in case of Google Scholar) shows more than 'minimal' results. Beagel (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is used, not just to find publications, but to evaluate their impact in the field - based on how often the publications are cited by others. The highest number of cites for any article mentioning this topic is 13. There is another article with 10 cites and all the others have fewer than 10. This suggests that other scholars are not finding this subject to be worth citing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the criteria to be 'minimal' or not? If 13 mentioning of the single article is minimal, what number is not? Beagel (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF, for a scientist I would expect to see multiple articles with at least 50 cites each, to indicate that the person is a leader in his/her field; truly important academicians may have individual articles which are cited by others hundreds of times. (Those are not firm numbers since some fields of scholarship generate far more citations than others.) The number of cites of articles on this subject is minimal by almost any definition. I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important. --MelanieN (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I interpret this to mean that although there are some people writing articles that mention the subject, others are not finding those articles to be very important.

But this is more far reaching than

WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• I agree. This is analogous how we judge academics (see
  WP:PROF): not by whether they have published and if yes, how much, but on whether their publications have had an impact. --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is interesting: the article is nominated for deletion based on

WP:VPP) and create consensus instead of partisan activities by nominating all Framework Programmes' articles one-by-one for deletion. Beagel (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• See MelanieN's explanation above. I'm not saying that PROF applies, just making an analogy. Another one would be sports: it would be weird to have a lower bar for a whole team of athletes than for a single athlete only. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. After carefully reviewing the article and arguments above, I think it just satisfies WP:GNG, based on references 9 and 10. The tone of the article is not promotional but educational and informative. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ref. 10 is an in-passing mention in a brief news item (if you don't have access, send me an email address where I can send the PDF). Ref. 9 is a report on the project from participants and, as such, not independent. As it was only just published, it has certainly not yet been cited, so at right now there is no way of predicting whether this will generate much, if any, interest of the wider scientific community. --Crusio (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a such, this is sufficient for

WP:GNG this is irrelevant how much interest it will or not will create in the scientific community. However, it would be relevant if there is specific notability guidelines for research projects. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So an in-passing mention together with a report by the participanst does not satisfy GNG. --Crusio (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yet another one of those Europrojects that has some flashy news but no real notability.
  WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nothing to see here, move along. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How exactly journals like Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology and Chemical Research in Toxicology fall under

WP:DOGBITESMAN in this case? Beagel (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Because those publications are not independent, but written by project participants. Publishing is what academics do. I myself have a grant (all alone, not a huge team of researches like this project) and we have now published 4 papers in good journals. Does that now mean that my project is notable and should have an article? Of course not, all I did was my job, nothing out of the ordinary: indeed, Dog bites man. --Crusio (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This project has not received
  significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the current references are non-independent, having been written by the participants themselves. Goodvac (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems pretty clear--all delete !votes withdrawn except for one based on there beingotherpeople of the same name, which does not appear to be a policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Johnson (baseball)

Jimmy Johnson (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASE/N. No sources. PROD declined but no reason given.

Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." He never managed for the Yankees major league team as the article could be construed to insinuate. Alex (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]