Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Ising

Jane Ising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous prod was removed. This doesn't seem to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO in general. Deadbeef (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There is no evidence of passing
  WP:PROF, so she seems more likely to be notable as a supercentenarian than an academic. But a few local newspaper articles aren't enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with both English and French lyrics

List of songs with both English and French lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I feel like this would be better as a category, because there aren't enough songs with articles and both English and French lyrics to populate an entire page. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yet another pointless list, I'd object to a category on this as well. Non-notable list, unreferenced, and very few blue links. Inclusion criteria and the name are ambiguous, for example, are the alternate language versions done by the same artist or a different one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list would be extensive, if it included every single French/English lyriced song. The first song I thought of (
  silent night), extremely famous for being multi-linugal is not even in the list.Martin451 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTN. It is both trivial and impossible to define: how any words have to be in French and English? What about words that are recognized in both languages, like
  List of French words and phrases used by English speakers? --Crunch (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clout Communications

Clout Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines and the page is being used for promotion and advertising by individuals who have a conflict of interests and are involved in the company. Tags have been added to request the page be improved but they are repeatedly removed. Rushton2010 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination;
  using Wikipedia as a free ad host. Google News results are remarkably sparse, and reveal that the various sources cited but not linked in text are a series of incidental mentions in unrelated stories. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as sheer
  WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't Delete Would be fair enough if this policy was applied consistently but a casual browse through Wikipedi would throw up many pages very similar but somehow OK. Why, for instance, is Clout Communications less worthy than, say, Freud Commuications - which I used as a model (as advised by Wikipedia editing guidelines). I noted that Clout was no more or less notable, no more or less a puffery, than Freud and others - so what is the issue. The issue is, purely and simply, value judgments and not a transgression of the spirit or academic credentials of Wikipedia edits. Value Judgments bring Wiki into disrepute as much as any alleged commercialism and damage its reputation as a good source. There is no advertising no any commercial value whatsoever in clout Communications or most of the others. It is a simple statement of factual accuracy and has no commercial value whatsoever to anyone involved. Anyone who says that simply does not understand how a PR firms works - they don't need to advertise. Picknick99 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Notable clients do not confer WP notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Christian Hopkins

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

John Christian Hopkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable author, awards are not major, lacks coverage about Hopkins in independent reliable sources. mix of primary, local puff and non

• I guess I would respectfully disagree that his awards are not "major"; within the world of ethnic and Native American journalism, the NAJAA awards are actually quite prestigious. It is true that, so far, his fiction and poetry have only received coverage in relatively local newspapers; but it is also true that he is beginning to attract scholarly attention (his work will appear in a book next year with the University of Nebraska Press, for instance). I wonder if it is possible simply to flag the article as needing source-updating and improvement, rather than deleting it entirely? [In the interest of full disclosure I will add that I am teaching a university course with a component on Wikipedia, and that this article was written by two of my students for that course.] Thanks so much for your attention.Ssenier (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A google news search for "NAJAA Awards" [24] comes up with one unrelated result. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside. I hope that you mark based on the quality of your students work instead of their chosen subjects notability (unless that's an important part of the class). duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The search you carried out had an inaccurate spelling, so it's not surprising that it would return zero results. A search for "NAJA Awards" brought up quite a few - I then narrowed that down with an additional modifier to produce this [25]. They're certainly notable awards. Vizjim (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of organisations congratulating themselves on having won an award. Which are independent. Put your search thru google news. what do you get? No results found for "NAJA awards" "native american". duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a result in Google News. This seems like a case of chop logic. Vizjim (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom; there's a paucity of mainstream RS for this subject. An initial glance makes it look like a delete. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• While a search for "NAJAA Awards" may come up sparse, a search for "Native American Journalist Association Awards" comes up with a variety of related articles.Othomas39 (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know this argument isn't always popular, but numbers matter when discussing Native American writers. Hopkins is significant because he is one of very few Narragansett writers, and one of very few opinion columnists from any tribe at the time his career began, as noted in Sage's Encyclopedia of Journalism [26] (p. 320). Wikipedia criteria are usually good but can distort the argument when it comes to very small tribal nations (Narragansett have less than 3000 members). Vizjim (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a popular argument because it is fundamentaly flawed. Being Native American is not part of any Wikipedia notability policy, he is judged the same as others. I am one of the few Wikipedia editors from my street, does that make me notable? No. Sage just has a passing mention, nothing indepth. We don't treat small tribal nations as something different, would you apply the same argument to a town of less than 3000? To a street of less than 3000? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because those are not tribal nations with
      tribal sovereignty.Vizjim (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep. I think you have to define "non notable author". This author has five books out, received awards, and is a nationally syndicated columnist. All of that certainly seems notable; he is respected enough to garner multiple book deals and has been printed in newspapers around the country. If this author's page should be deleted for "notability" concerns, than I am sure many others should be as well. BromoSapien (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AUTHOR. Already been defined. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Since this debate began, two more reliable sources have been added: the book by Michael Ward, and the SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism.Ssenier (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is by him, not about him. The second is a simple namecheck. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but limit the article to his journalism, not his self-published novels, only one of which is even in World (and that one, in essentially no libraries). Including non- encyclopedic material of that sort indicates a promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RecycleBot

RecycleBot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This is an

• Comment: That specific thing (RecycleBot) doesn't seem very notable by itself, but the
  RecycleBot merged into an "Examples" section? —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems important. Keep either at current title or redirect, with move of material, to the linked waste plastic extruder article per Ignatzmice's suggestion above. Note there is now an AFD on the waste plastic extruder article; these two AFDs should be considered and closed together. --doncram 17:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"It seems important" is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep as the topic is important and inspireable too. - Voidz (t·c) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSERTN. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: Voidz (talk · contribs) has been indef'd for spamming and sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Do NOT merge: Patent spam created by now indeffed professional spammer. Suggest merge target is another spam article created by same spammer. Lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. I didn't even realise that this was Voidz at it again. –
  BB 09:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The articles creator, Batboys previously Recyclebotboy, appears unrelated to Voidz. Batboys soul purpose it to introduce research by the recyclebots developers. Totally different to Voidz's scattergun approach. Voidz's participation appears to be purely a retaliatory !vote against the nominator.. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pacifico

Paul Pacifico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

musician lacking notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. original research. part of a campaign to introduce articles related to The AllStars. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have edited the article, updated sources and pictures to demonstrate notability. Whilst there is absolutely a connection between Paul Pacifico and The AllStars, my feeling is that both are notable together and independently. I hope the updates have demonstrated this and welcome any feedback that will help continue to improve the entry. Musicfanlondon (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References added do not indicate any significant coverage. All are just trivial mentions in passing (or just incorrect references altogether, pointing to articles having nothing at all to do with Pacifico). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Looks NN tome. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fatigue (material). ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air

Difference of fatigue strength in vacuum and air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The main topic is not original. For example, see In Vacuo Fatigue or Low-cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction. The topic just requires improvement per our
  editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The effects of vacuum and air on fatigue could be mentioned in the article fatigue (material), if they're discussed in reliable sources (currently there's a mention of the varying effects of "presence of oxidizing or inert chemicals" and a brief section on the effects of environment, mentioning corrosion fatigue). But this not currently good encyclopedic content: it's original research. Even if it was fully referenced, I see no reason to have an article devoted to comparing fatigue in these two specific media when it could be discussed in the general fatigue article (where will this end - should we have an article "Difference of fatigue strength in nitrogen and argon"?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be sensible to extend the article to cover the effect on fatigue of various common environments such as sea-water, oil-bath, &c. This would be done by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have rewritten the article from a good source, so removing all trace of OR and making the above hostile comments obsolete. Warden (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As rewritten, the article is no longer OR, but it is still barely viable as an article and would better serve merged with Fatigue (material). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stress Corrosion Cracking or Environmental stress fracture seem to be better targets but notice that there are three of them. In my experience, the more one looks, the more complex such matters become. It is not for AFD to settle such questions; just to decide whether to delete or not. Warden (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete From the discussion above it seems that the OR has been removed, but that simply leaves us with information which would be better covered under the scope of the greater article. There are countless comparisons and differences between things in the world, but that does not mean the information is best communicated to the reader in specific individual articles. This is a good example of an article where it would be better to contribute to already existing articles rather than let the information stay spread out in an attempt to "rescue" something of original research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Too slight for inclusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete or Merge: The article's subject matter is far too narrowly focused, and it doesn't seem likely that it could grow much beyond a stub. However, the content (as recently rewritten) is valid, so per
  WP:PRESERVE I would prefer to see it merged somewhere over having the information lost completely. My first reaction was to suggest Fatigue (material), but Warden suggested some good alternatives. Regardless, it doesn't seem to me that this article is viable. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Too slight? Can't grow beyond a stub? It appears that commentators don't understand how extensively this topic has been studied. Here's two dozen papers to give you an idea and there appear to be thousands more. I might do more with the topic myself but currently find the stress of this discussion to be fatiguing:

1. Characteristics of fatigue fracture of magnesium alloy MA12 in air and in vacuum
2. Crack tip geometry for fatigue cracks grown in air and vacuum
3. Deformation and damage processes in a 12% CrMo V steel under high temperature low cycle fatigue conditions in air and vacuum
4. Development of environment controllable micro mechanical testing machine and the influence of vacuum on fracture and fatigue in aramid single fiber
5. Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Growth in 7075 Aluminum Alloy
6. Fatigue crack growth mechanics for Ti-6Al-4V (RA) in vacuum and humid air
7. Fatigue crack micromechanisms in ingot and powder metallurgy 7xxx aluminum alloys in air and vacuum
8. Fatigue Crack Nucleation and Growth Mechanisms for Ti6Al4V in Different Environments
9. Fatigue Damage Mechanism of Titanium in Vacuum and in Air
10. Fractography of fatigue crack propagation in 2024-T3 and 7075-16 aluminum alloys in air and vacuum
11. Friction and Wear Behavior of Nanocrystalline Nickel in Air and Vacuum
12. Improved bending fatigue and corrosion properties of a Mg-Al-Mn alloy by super vacuum die casting
13. Improving Fatigue Performance of CFRP Strengthened Steel Beams by Applying Vacuum Pressure in the Wet Layup of CFRP Woven Sheets
14. Microstructure evolution during cycling in vacuum and air environments
15. Morphological Aspects of Fatigue Crack Formation and Growth
16. Plastic strain fatigue in air and vacuum
17. Plastic zone around fatigue cracks of pure iron in vacuum and dry air
18. Sliding behavior of dual phase steels in vacuum and in air
19. Slow fatigue crack growth and threshold behaviour in air and vacuum of commercial aluminium alloys
20. The effect of air and vacuum environments on fatigue crack growth rates in Ti-6Al-4V
21. The fatigue behavior of a zirconium-based bulk metallic glass in vacuum and air
22. The slow fatigue crack growth and threshold behaviour of a medium carbon alloy steel in air and vacuum
23. Vacuum Levels Needed to Simulate Internal Fatigue Crack Growth in Titanium Alloys and Nickel-Base Superalloys
24. Wear life mechanism of journal bearings with bonded MoS2 film lubricants in air and vacuum

Warden (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ... ... trivial, too few, non-independent, passing mentions, not news, insignificant, too many, copyvio, BLP, unreliable, ... zzzzz, ..... Thincat (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  WP:GNG. I do not understand people !voting "delete" and going on to say that the information should be included in some other article. Is that not very close to going against our policy of requiring attribution even within WP? The Colonel quite properly raises the matter of multiple possible merge targets. In this case cross-linking to the eventually selected target would work I think. If in any doubt, "keep". Thincat (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: After further reflection, it seems to me that this article may be salvaged if it were renamed to something like Environmental effects on fatigue strength or Variations in fatigue strength in different media. That way, the article could also include coverage of other variables such as fatigue strength of materials immersed in water, oil, etc. An article that is just devoted to a comparison of a single set of environmental variables (vacuum and air) is too narrow (i.e. would it be acceptable to have a whole series of separate articles involving various other combinations of variables such as air/water, water/vacuum, etc.)? But if the article's scope were broadened to cover the entire topic of how the surrounding environment affects fatigue strength, then I could change my vote to "Keep." --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as has been suggested seems like the best course. It is perfectly valid to cite peer-review articles, even original research, within an article, but not to have
  an entire article made of original research. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• merge, and consider separating if expanded. The purpose of AfD is not merely to decide on deletion, but to find the appropriate solution for articles where deletion is suggested. This will some necessarily involve the consideration of other existing and potential articles, and an analysis of article content. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Title is nonsensical, and content belongs in another article
  p 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Fatigue (material), which is not large enough to justify having breakout articles like this. As Warden has pointed out, there is plenty of material with which to cover this topic, but I don't think it's best covered in a standalone article at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anukriti Gusain

Anukriti Gusain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Runner up in a beauty contest does not make somebody notable. No other achievements or claims to notability. Biker Biker (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Grande (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - She does get mention in several mainstream
  RS, but she's most of the mention is in the form of lists of contestants. Probably not sufficient to meet notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable.Jussychoulex (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. Jethwarp (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Due to its absence of neutral or credible sources, this piece clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's criterion of notability and should therefore be deleted unless neutral sources can justify Kinsella's claim (literally speaking, since Kinsella admits he wrote the page after one created by DickClarkMises, an anarchist libertarian ideologue who has taken it upon himself to create dozens of pages for obscure libertarian thinkers) to prominence. I will give three reasons as to why this should be the case, although there are undoubtedly many more. I invite those who care about the Wikipedia criteria for deletion to do the same.

1) The criterion of notability asserts that "multiple sources are generally expected" of notable figures, and affiliated sources don't count as multiple sources; yet every citation on this page either comes from Mr. Kinsella himself (which doesn't count as a source, according to the rules) or comes from the anarchist libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute and its various associated publications (The Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and LewRockwell.com]. I fail to see a compelling reason as to why Kinsella should be exempt from this "general" rule.

2) The claim that Kinsella is a prominent legal theorist is sourced by his publication in the above-mentioned journals. Yet the

3) The

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  t • c »  08:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have notified the subject (an editor here) and the article author as requested on the article talk page. I have also cleaned up templates in various places related to this AFD. I won't "vote" on the nomination itself but feel free to contact me if there is a technical issue with any of the templates I added/changed. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Weak Keep - Previous AfDs resulted in keep by significant margins. This article has been around since 05. Those facts combined would suggest this AfD will result in keep. Looking for references, this guy does get some minor mention in mainstream RS. All that said, I do sorta struggle to find a criterion under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals or Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria that this subject obviously passes. All-in-all, I'd say this guy just scrapes by notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Delete DickClarkMises, I did not say that Kinsella has never been cited by any mainstream journals; I said that his Wikipedia page only cites Mises-related publications and his own website, which means it should be deleted unless the material related to his notability can be sourced by a mainstream, NPOV publication. (Incidentally, his degree of citations in mainstream journals is very small compared to an average "notable" academic; I don't see much evidence that his work has passed a threshold of mainstream notability. But maybe you can help with that by providing some citations of mainstream journals describing his contributions.) Steeletrap (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NickCT seems to have only (and barely) voted to keep because of the Stephan Kinsella page's past success in these votes. I think that's a bad criterion in this case, since ideologues and sock-puppets were running up the vote score. (You yourself Dick, are an anarchist libertarian who has created dozens of Wikipedia entries for relatively obscure libertarian thinkers; do you -- and I'm just asking; genuinely don't mean to be snarky -- think that could affect your point of view? Also: I see you and Mr. Kinsella are both affiliated with the Von Mises Institute. Would you mind saying whether you are personally friendly with Mr. Kinsella?) Steeletrap (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you believe that the article is currently poorly written is not a valid argument for deletion based on non-notability. The number and quality of sources currently cited in the article are not what determines notability. See
  WP:NPA#WHATIS to understand why they are irrelevant to this discussion and why your comments constitute personal attacks that should be avoided. DickClarkMises (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Maybe a reasonable compromise could be to keep the page but only if the claims to notability can be sourced from NPOV/mainstream sources that aren't published by fellows at the (libertarian anarchist) Mises Institute where Kinsella is a Senior Fellow or published by Kinsella himself? If that could be done, I would strongly consider changing my vote. But if it can't, his claim to notability seems to lack credibility. Also, I don't think it's fair to say asking you -- who created the page originally before it was deleted and re-created by Mr. Kinsella himself -- whether you are friendly with Kinsella and whether you (who are also affiliated with the Mises Institute) share his (anarchist libertarian) political views is a personal attack. Ideological affinity (particularly in the case of a pretty small, tightly-knit political group) and personal friendship can bias anyone's judgment. Wikipedia rules indicate that "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack," which is all I'm doing. Steeletrap (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per prior AfD - it may be from 2007, but I am convinced by the sources and arguments in that AfD even today. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In three previous AfDs, closed as Delete once (2005) and Keep twice (2005, 2007). The last debate is not a strong one, based upon a "seems important/has published widely/yeah I agree" sort of chain of opinions. Footnotes showing in the piece are poor (largely self-published) and not sufficient for a GNG pass without a look-see at the internets, in my opinion. No opinion as to notability other than to say this should not be a slam-dunk keep based on a weak 2007 debate. Carrite (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Also note: seemingly self promotional per THIS. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't created by that account, so that particular argument doesn't really hold water with me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that Steeletrap is on a crusade against the LvMI and people associated with it. Whether or not this proposal has any merit, I cannot take it seriously due to the strong bias. --
  talk) 20:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I certainly am strongly biased against the Mises Institute, and I suppose that is material to the discussion, so I am happy to disclose that. (To put it plainly, I think they are cultish, ideologically-driven charlatans whose "economics" is just an attempt to justify their ideological priors), and also believe that a great many of them are bigots). However, the reasons given above for deleting the page can and should be decoupled from and considered independently of any biases I may have. Agree with my reasoning or not, it clearly relates to notability and doesn't depend on whether one personally likes or dislikes the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The applicable guideline appears to be
  WP:ACADEMIC. DCM's comment above points to publications that are the strongest claim to notability: Editorship of legal texts published by Oxford University Press (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). However, these are not enough to establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Has produced good books, published by a most reputable publisher (OUP), stocked in large number of important libraries (law and otherwise). In the legal field his Online Contract Formation ("Online contract formation.(LAW)(Book Review)." Reference & Research Book News. Book News Inc. 2005. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-135655733.html) contains an extensive indexing of laws plus commentaries on the subject. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two books with Oxford University press are enough for notability. And there's also the editorship of the major legal treatises by the standard publisher in the field, West (and its affiliated companies). None of this has anything to do with his theoretical positions, but rather shows widespread acceptance as an authority. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the works published by Oceana Publications are OUP as well. And the West/Thomson Reuters publication is an important legal practice guide from the major publisher of law books in the US. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Console2

Console2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by

• Delete, no notability established, written like an advertisement. JIP | Talk 04:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable application, and there's hardly any information provided. Grande (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subbian Krishnakumar

Subbian Krishnakumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Having many degrees does not make one notable. Grande (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Created by
  WP:SPA. Apparent WP:VANITY. NickCT (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:AUTOBIO. blatantly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faith McKinnon

Faith McKinnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail

• We was the head writer of one of Australia's most popular drama series and has significant TV drama credits - look at her IMDB creditsDutchy85 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Text of article explains why it is notable; that is good enough. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources provide significant coverage of Ms McKinnon, so
  WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails every point of
  czar · · 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, doesn't seem to meet any
  WP:CREATIVE criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brantley Mobile Home Park, Alabama

Brantley Mobile Home Park, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable mobile home park. Its only claim to fame seems to be being hit by a tornado.[28] Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find any sources to establish notability. Doesn't appear to be a notable populated place. Valenciano (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, and mobile home parks don't really fall under the general rules about settlements. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No compelling reason to see this place as notable, given that mobile home parks are generally not considered inherently notable, unlike towns and larger settlements. News information on the community seems to relate to a tornado which was not itself notable, and which did not lend the mobile home park any notability. Chri$topher 20:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chri$topher. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young Spiffy

Young Spiffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

as per my previous nomination. fails WP:MUSICBIO. no evidence of actually producing albums, winning major awards. in fact according to the article started his own label LibStar (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, borderline A7. Fails
  WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Full of "citation needed" tags, some of which are the only claim to notability anyway, and the fact that this record label has apparently only signed family up shows how notable it isn't. And this guy fails everything that the nom says it does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan ideals found in Mormon beliefs

Pagan ideals found in Mormon beliefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This entire article is a synthesis of research written as an essay. The tone clearly indicates that it is written to advocate a position which consists of a novel theory regarding Mormonism. See

• Delete per nom. It might make for an interesting small section of an article about Mormonism, but as written it fails several policies. Andrew³²⁷ 02:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:NOTESSAY. Sources are largely self-published and a general lack of neutrality. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's a well enough done original essay, but it's an original essay. Publish something like this in a peer-reviewed journal and then check back in a year... Carrite (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as synthesis and a personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Would seem to violate a slew of policies. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTESSAY. Content seems to be largely a synthesis of original research, and therefore not acceptable as a Wikipedia article. Chri$topher 21:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus seems clear after the improvements. (The ref. format still needs some cleanup, btw) DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami Brothers