Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 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 keep.  Sandstein  10:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sutherland

Jeff Sutherland (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)

The subject of the article doesn't necessarily meet notability criteria; provided links are very limited and don't establish notability. cherkash (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per
  WP:NOTLINKEDIN —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • He was (and is) important for the development of Scrum. Scrum is used by thousends of people. There is even an article on him in another language Freek Verkerk (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these provide sufficient criteria to establish notability cherkash (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Adding in actual references now. He seems to have made a widely recognised contribution. But the article is incredibly poorly written. Needs to be fixed. Somewhat fixed. -ManicSpider (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done, ManicSpider, thanks! by Softzen (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I'm not clear on which external links are acceptable. I can't see the point in most of them. -ManicSpider (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SarahStierch (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP - Is Jeff Sutherland, the co-founder of one of the most popular agile methods for the last decade, not notable? It's a bad joke. Just keep the article and improve it. by Softzen (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Jeff Sutherland is an authoritative source in Agile / Scrum and deserves a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raztazman (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – even after a re-work, the subject's notability is not well established. Most all links/references in the article are only tangential to the subject: they reference the products/ideas he may have developed, but don't clearly reference the subject himself. E.g., it doesn't make sense to keep quoting different sources about Scrum or Agile (to which multiple references exist) since they have separate Wiki articles - especially if none of these sources clearly refer to the subject of the article itself, or support any of the stated facts about Jeff as a person. So the article remains poorly referenced (essentially, unreferenced!) with respect to Jeff himself, and all the external links are not really good sources per Wikipedia standards. cherkash (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Was shocked to see this discussion today. I personally study and practice SCRUM, and I read Jeff Sutherland's name multiple times, in various works as he his highly referenced. I noticed the article lacked two of his books, which where added today. In the world of SCRUM he is Notability has been established.

1. 1 of 14 Authors of the Agile Manifesto many of which also Wikipedia articles.
2. Published several books and other works on the subject.
3. Asked to write Foreword but other Agile Authors, such as in "Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash"
4. CEO of a Company specializing in SCRUM.
5. Interviewed by FORBES
6. Contrary to other claims, article is highly referenced with 14 unique references.
7. Sources are published books from various authors meet the guidelines outlined in
   Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

CentervilleDad (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the single-purpose accounts aside, the coverage of this individual in reliable sources (such as Forbes would indicate to me that he meets
  WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep per Lankiveil.LM2000 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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 as a standalone topic, possibly more suitable as a subtopic of

Withdrawn by nominator Another experienced editor has agreed to collaborate with the article creator to make it viable. --Drm310 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to incorporate into domestic violence, really. A separate section on domestic violence and popular culture could be called for, but only in a prose format. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's an argument to be made for an article about this topic, but this is not that article. If someone else wants to start over again and write an article based on reliable sources, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the topic is notable despite the article not being in good shape. Per
  domestic violence in film
  . The topic's general notability is demonstrated below:
  • The AFI Readers book Violence and American Cinema has the chapter "Documenting Domestic Violence in American Films".
  • The book Violence Against Women in Families and Relationships has the chapter "Film, Violence, and Gender".
  • The book Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary American Cinema has the chapter "The Redemption of Domestic Violence: The New Hollywood Family from To Kill a Mockingbird to Sling Blade".

I also found books with chapters about domestic violence in a specific film. I believe it is possible to also have a list article where we can identify films that have acts of domestic violence. The article list of films featuring surveillance, which I developed, can be used as a template for that, so there can be both prose and list in regard to this topic. Drm310, Jprg1966, NinjaRobotPirate -- what approach would satisfy you here? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a fair proposal. I have stricken my vote to delete. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I've also contacted GenderMovie about a possible collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd change my mind as long as the resulting article is a list of films in which gender-based violence is central to the plot a major arc. The definition of gender-based violence needs to be established, though, using reliable sources. What I don't want to see is a mile-long list of films that could interpret any act of violence as being gender-motivated. --Drm310 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We can leave it up to secondary sources to determine that and require for each entry to be backed by one (or two, if preferred). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds more like the article that I was envisioning. One source per entry is enough, but the source should clearly state that the violence is gendered. I was also thinking that a real article could be written about this topic: a history of gendered violence, its causes, and its reception. For example,
  Manual of Style (no inline links). I struck my vote, so if someone wants to close this as "speedy keep", they can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Delete - Blatant Hoax. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calgar (train)

Calgar (train) (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)

No sources to be found that mention this derailment or this train in any manner. The fact that the train is described as a "24 decked train" and that the citations given are quite vague leads me to believe that this is likely a

Delete - 24-decked train? I don't think even 3 deck models exist. E-class seems to apply only to automobiles and container ships, and one ref is the "The Ship Fact Catalog"? I thought this was a train. Chris857 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This whole article is totally made up. E-class diesel-powered train? 24 decked train? Sources are nonsense.
  No train collision took place in June of 1904. Totally made up. --CyberXRef^talk 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow delete as obvious hoax. Baton Rouge to Edmonton by train? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Jimmy Bubnick

Jimmy Bubnick (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 ice hockey player. Canada Hky (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me What did he do now? 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing by way of the GNG outside of WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE violations. The subject hasn't played beyond major junior, and at that level, needs to achieve "preeminent honors" -- to wit, being an all-time top ten career scorer or a First Team All-Star -- to meet the criteria of
  WP:NHOCKEY. He hasn't. At his age, a prerequisite for future notability as a hockey player would be to play in the pros. He hasn't done that either. Ravenswing 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ravenswing. He pretty much sums it up. Nothing to say he meets NHOCKEY and he fails to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above and nom. Patken4 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm actually a little surprised he never went pro, anywhere. Was a good little player for the Hitmen. He is also nn. Resolute 20:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly, per above. —
  ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – Meets GNG with several independent and significant sources including[17][18][19][20], and also meets criteria #4 of
  WP:NHOCKEY to wit, as a member of the 2010 Memorial Cup First All-Star Team. Dolovis (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Do you even read the "sources" you post in these discussions? The first one is a blog, thus not a reliable source. The 3rd on is a reprint from hitmenhockey.com thus not independant. And the 4th one isn't even an article, its a database entry. And criteria #4 is for a season First All-Star, not an individual tournament. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a crying shame that the disconnect between what policies, guidelines and the consensus thereof actually hold, and what Dolovis wants them to state, is so profound. His disagreement with them is tolerable (heck, there's at least one contentious issue on which I agree with him against consensus); his routine and willful defiance of them is not. Ravenswing 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic therapy

Cymatic therapy (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)

Fringe medical therapy lacking reliable sources to build an article off of. Has issues pertaining to

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure - nothing can be found on either Google news or scholar, except for
  I can't tell how many are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - It's an obscure and preposterous fringe medical theory that failes
  WP:MEDRS. It's also worth checking out Vibroacoustic therapy which is virtually the same idea but credited it to a different inventor and also subject to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not Delete - it is not fringe medical theory. VAT is not fringe medical theory - FDA approved for 3 medical claims and many hospitals and allied health professionals use this for more than 3 decades. VAT uses low frequencies - Cymatic uses high frequencies. I have posted many articles from PubMed and Universities.Cyrinus (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first reference is dead link, second is spam. Upon searching for references, only patents, some books, and an obscure article or two are found- all of which fail
  WP:MEDRS. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your interpretation of

WP:MEDRS is wrong. Do proper research before voice your opinion. If music therapy is compliant then cymatics is compliant. Cyrinus (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You are entitled to that opinion. The facts, remain, however, that the sources are not compliant. And please stop with the "if X then Y" argument. You've been told many times that that is an invalid argument on Wikipedia. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cyrinus, please refer to

WP:OTHERSTUFF, that explains why we do not accept arguments of the form you made above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - may rise to
  wp:NFRINGE per this, if CSICOP is considered a RS on what is FRINGE. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This pseudoscience subject is popular with modern naturopathy adherents. I was introduced to the topic via a podcast I stumbled upon here. Upon going through the page's references, it is clear that a large body of "work" exists on the subject. At any rate, a proper encyclopedic treatment of the literature would be beneficial to humanity. Krushia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question are you suggesting that the podcast is a
  WP:MEDRS that justifies the notability of this subject? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No. I do not believe one will find much at all for

Niche hypothesis under naturopathy. Krushia (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• it is difficult to interpret MEDRS. the guidelines are biased towards medicine and pharma - not relevant to mainstream health, wellness - or integrative medicine which is becoming the mainstream in many countries. if we take MEDRS black and white - most of the articles in the wiki must be deleted. good example theta healing was approved and it is on wiki. pemf and other energy medicine, music therapy etc. wiki should include all health and wellness modalities without any bias. future is friendly. people use cymatic therapy, pemf, vibroacoustics, physioacoustics, vibration therapy, sound therapy for many decades... some are even approved by FDA and Health Canada. wiki readers must have freedom of information. enough said. Cyrinus (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Cymatic therapy is not a fringe theory. It isn't mainstream, but so what? Different sound based methods have been helping people in healing process for centuries. See for example raga therapy or Tibetan bowls, to name the few. So healing with sound is nothing new actually. What's wrong with acknowledging modern developments? Unless you want to have an out-of-date encyclopaedia with narrow, orthodox world views, do not delete that article. Oh, and by the way, yes, there are many crappy sources about the subject, that doesn't mean it's false. Fizalfizal (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without even leaving the first sentence I'd be sticking a {{Confusing}} at the top. It doesn't even say what the therapy is for. Putting that aside the only references are both dead links (so is the therapy itself?). Google search for Cymatic therapy yields nothing useful. Looking at google books, there are quiet a few books, but per
  WP:RSMED. --CyberXRef^talk 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SarahStierch (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Does not seem to have much, if any, notability. Could conceivably be merged or redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seems like it might possibly have notability as a pseudoscience. Searching for sources I go a lot of 'noise' from unrelated concepts. They might exist, but I doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have reverted an edit that added several votes under different names and changed votes that had already been cast. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

John Galea (singer/songwriter)

John Galea (singer/songwriter) (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 unable to locate
  WP:music Dlohcierekim 15:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep notable UK singer/songwriter who needs a wikepedia page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.199 (talk • contribs)
• CommentReview of sources shows do not amount to significant coverage for GNG. Dlohcierekim 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a nearly identical re-creation of John Galea, recently deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HorsefeathersI should have checked that. Dlohcierekim 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Wang

Andy Wang (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 MMA fighter - loosing record at anything approaching top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One top tier fight does not show notability (see
  WP:NMMA). Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There's no doubt he doesn't meet
  WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Due to the now clear, policy-backed consensus, it would appear Munjed Al Muderis is not currently notable enough to warrant an article. This close does not prejudice against recreation at a later time, if/when he is covered by more reliable sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munjed Al Muderis

Munjed Al Muderis (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)

Biography of living person that does not establish notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Does not pass
  WP:MEDRS sourcing. If kept, the article should certainly be edited to remove the names of his patients! --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Some interesting history: An SPA wrote three articles earlier this year: one about Dr. Al Muderi, one about his practice, and one about the Zebra Lines. Their article about Dr. Al Muderi was declined at AfC in August [21] and a new article (this one) was created by a second SPA in October. The first SPA's article about the practice was declined three separate times at AfC, then improved by the second SPA, but still seems to be languishing at AfC.[22] In October the second SPA simply went ahead (bypassing AfC) and created an article about Dr. Al Muderis's practice, The Osseointegration Group of Australia, which largely duplicates this biographical article including listing the names of his patients; that article needs to be looked at. The third article, about Zebra Lines, was somehow passed at AfC bypassed AfC; I am about to nominate it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebra Lines. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this is cute: The journal article which described Zebra Lines had two other co-authors besides Dr. Al Muderi, but the reference citations in the two articles list Al Muderi as the only author. Yet more evidence that this related group of articles is promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the duplicate AfC entry for The Osseointegration Group of Australia. That article is pretty spammy, too, though. Maybe this should have been a mass AfD. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is kept (which is still up in the air), the article about The Osseointegration Group of Australia should be redirected to it. The information is 100% duplicated. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi guys, thanks for your input however, I disagree with your conclusion that Dr Al Muderis (not Muderi as you repeatedly state)is not notable enough for Wikipedia. He is the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world. As you mention there are multiple mentions of him in news articles which only further proves his notability. You mention a fact discrepancy between the article I created and a transcript from the ABC show 7.30 Report. I am a journalist myself (you can google me to substantiate this) and unfortunately sometimes news sources get facts wrong sometimes. There are three other sources I can provide you with that include interviews with Dr Al Muderis where he says himself it was the ears of army deserters that he was instructed to cut off. The reason his patients names are mentioned as they are examples of world first operations of their kind and Brendan Burkett being an accomplished Paraolympian makes him worthy of mentioning. There has been a few more articles about osseointegration and Dr Al Muderis published in prominent national Australian magazines this month which I am happy to add to the reference list. I'm sorry if you view these articles as promotional this is not the case. Rather my intention was to provide the broader amputee community with a procedure which can dramatically change their life. I do have an affiliation with Dr Al Muderis in that I was a patient of his. I am a amputee and had osseointegration surgery a year ago and it has changed my life dramatically. I am rid of the pain I endured daily and can now walk freely without restriction. I only stumbled across the procedure by accident and since it has had such a positive effect on my life all I want is for other amputees to experience the same happiness and success I have. It is a new surgery so is not common mainstream knowledge yet so deleting these articles would only deny the amputee community of information that could improve their life.

I am happy to improve the articles with your feedback if you let me know what it is you feel they are lacking. Thanks. Miranda Cashin (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Miranda Cashin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If this is verifiable, please provide a link. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the coverage in the article there is also Weaver, Clair (1 August 2013), "From penniless prisoner to bionic surgeon", The Australian Women's Weekly. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. With two articles in Web of Knowledge (the Zebra Lines thing MelanieN notes plus a paper on hip arthroplasty cited only twice), he certainly doesn't seem to pass PROF. The news stories seem to relate a
  WP:SINGLEEVENT. Together, I'm not convinced those things add up to notability. Cnilep (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which event? The not cutting off ears/feet, escaping from his country, trouble in the detention centre or his operations? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operation. Pretty sure not cutting off people's ears doesn't make someone notable. Not cutting off limbs is a pretty common achievement. Ditto leaving one's country, or being verbally abused in a jail. None of those things go to notability. He's known for an operation on a notable person; everything else is background. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gross trivialization of the facts. Not cutting someones ears off, when ordered to by a dictator, in a totalitarian country and having to leave the country to escape punishment is quite an achievement.--Xman64 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another question: how can he be such a renowned expert in osseointegration ("the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world") when it appears he has never published a single paper on the subject? [23] --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 30 November 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, buffbills7701 12:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some doctor who has published one article and has an unusual background story but not really notable. jni (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some doctor A prominant Orthopaedic Surgeon.. who has published one article who has published three articles.. [24] and coined a well published phrase in the industry - Zebra Lines (which has been updated recently to reflected wikipedias requirement for multiple citations) not really notable Has had many articles published within the Australia media on his life and work. --Xman64 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reasonable notability per generic guideline: significant coverage multiple reliable sources. - Altenmann >t 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting admin comment - While it is not standard practice to relist debates three times, I'm relisting this debate for the specific purpose of requesting further discussion on this feature, done on Muderis by the
  WP:BLP? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have not previously commented, but on the specific question of whether the Women's Weekly article should count as an RS for the purposes of WP:GNG my answer has to be in the affirmative. As a UK man I am not in the habit of reading Australian women's magazines but unless there is something of which I am aware the fact that it is aimed specifically at the female market and the magazine may also contain material that would not be considered suitable for Wikipedia cannot be a bar. Many publications have a readership which is heavily skewed. It qualifies in other respects and GNG is thereby satisfied. --AJHingston (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reasons provided by
  WP:MEDRS standards. I understand why some may feel this is a borderline call, but what the article claims he's famous for - the phrase 'Zebra Lines' - is not generally accepted. In addition, the "accomplishments" section is filled with two-liners more appropriate in articles about the patients themselves, not the doctor. Finally, the infobox looks awful. If kept, there are definitely improvements to be made, but I don't see the notability here to take that step. GRUcrule (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hold everything! I just noticed that the main reference for this article [25] - a source which is cited six separate times and is used to support claims like descent from the Iraqi royal family - appears to have been written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, and not by "Peter Meehan" as the reference claims. Somebody please double check this; I don't want to be the only one saying that the authorship of the primary source appears to have been falsified. If this is true, then a good deal of the article needs to be junked, as based on a self-referential or primary source. Furthermore, when most of the third-party news stories talk about his past, they are getting their information from the subject, in the form of interviews and such. It looks to me as if all of the "fleeing Iraq" reporting is based only on his own colorful stories; basically everything about his life pre-Australia seems to be unverified and based on his own say-so. The only reliably sourced information in the article is the news stories about his patients and their "cyborg legs". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, while the PDF itself has a number of authors, the part about "a descendant from the 2nd family of the Iraq Royal Family when the country was under British rule" is indeed written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, making it an unverified claim. So that has to go unless someone can provide another source for this. --CyberXRef^talk 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper, the reference about him graduating from Baghdad University is also self-published. In fact the entire Early Career section is based self-published source (even the ABC news is just a transcript of an interview, which is self-published in nature). Also, how is proposing a term (Zebra Lines, which looks like should be deleted as well) an achievement. --CyberXRef^talk 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for verifying. It looks to me as if the ENTIRE section of the pdf about Munjed Al Muderis was written by the subject himself. Did you find anything anywhere about this subject written by a "Peter Meehan"? BTW as I noted above, the authorship of the published article about zebra lines has also been somewhat falsified; both here and at the Zebra Lines page, the journal article is cited to Al Muderis as sole author, rather than to Al Muderis and two co-authors. We may need to regard all the cited references with some suspicion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete mostly anything I would say would be a repeat of what was said above. It fails
  WP:PROF; there are a limited amount of publication. --CyberXRef^talk 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was A10 - recreation of Keshavdas. Alexf^(talk) 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav das

Keshav das (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)

Untranslated. Tritario (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qmee

Qmee (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)

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable website created by a new editor with no other edits. The article sources are personal blogs, company profile websites and affiliated websites with no evidence of editorial oversight. Fails

Delete - I see no evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Links to paid advertising and websites connected to the subject are not sufficient to meet
  verifiable information requirement. A bit promotional in tone. Not sure what a rewrite would leave behind. Dlohcierekim 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. nn. website. jni (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:WEB pretty clearly. --CyberXRef^talk 16:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: No
  notability. AllyD (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Google search I just ran returned a lot of forum and blog posts. None of which help it to meet
  WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Close per SNOW. I'm not closing this necessarily as "speedy" since I read the nomination statement, short as it is, as an equivalent to "pure spam which needs to be rewritten entirely etc". Having said that, though, consensus for this to be kept is clear and there is no need to keep this open longer. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sol (Laptop)

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

)

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

advertising by the founder of the company The Banner talk 11:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the second nomination, as the first was this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi. The owner and his wingman keep going on with adding this piece of advertising in other articles. The Banner talk 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets
  WP:GNG based on the sources in the article, let alone looking elsewhere; Banner, please stop nominating articles without checking if they're actually about notable things or not, just because they are slightly promotional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I swallow that Sol is being seen as notable but the company is not-notable as stated in the outcome of the last AfD. And this article is revert back to the company by the founder and owner of that company. The Banner talk 13:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because you went about things in entirely the wrong way. Instead of rewriting the article properly, you left it in an awful state, not even bothering to add it into any categories... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At least I did an attempt to remove spam and irrelevant info. But stating that the failure to add categories is a proper excuse for the owner/founder/author to reinstate all the mess, makes me sick and sad. The Banner talk 13:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did I say it was a proper excuse? The fact is, it was obvious that the mess you left was always going to force the hand of the company, especially when you neglected even the very basic things, like categories. If you'd done it properly, it would've been far less likely that you would've been reverted; and if you had been reverted, you'd have had a much stronger ground to stand on. The article isn't even particularly spammy right now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You clearly endorse it by refusing to act against it. And the present article is just a failure to adhere to the outcome of the first AfD. The Banner talk 13:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I and others have pointed out, AfD is not cleanup. I do not "endorse" the current article, and your attempts at manipulation are a discredit to yourself. To be blunt, the present article is better than the hash you produced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG and recently survived AfD under different name (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi). While there's no rule against renominating an article, it's arguably disruptive to renominate without answering any of the opposing arguments from the previous AfD. Nominator has also been involved in content/editing disputes over the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The conclusion was: The result was Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect . But now the article is again about the non-notable company WeWi. The Banner talk 13:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no good rationale to delete this article.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the founder and owner of the company has reverted the article about the laptop to an article about the company. That means that he makes an unpolite gesture with the middle finger to everyone involved in the first AfD which concluded that the laptop was notable but the company was not notable: The result was Move to Sol (laptop) and make a redirect. Now we have to do the whole discussion all over again because the founder/owner/author refuses to accept the outcome of the first nomination. All the fuss about Wiki-PR will be utterly useless when you don't act against this type of promotion/advertising. The Banner talk 13:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your argument however even if this article is written by the founder of the company the article still meets

wp:GNG and should not be deleted. If you feel like the author is give us the middle finger then talk to him or tell an admin don't Delete his work.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Flagrant COI, sockpuppetry and overt support from people who know better aside, the laptop itself is probably semi-notable, with five secondary sources covering it. If there's a suitable merge target then so be it, but it's a waste of effort going through multiple AfDs. That said, the puppets should be cluebatted promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the original AfD; the issues highlighted in that discussion have not been resolved, but there are no new issues being presented here, and the article can be fixed. It appears nobody has made a serious attempt at this point. As established previously, the laptop is notable, the company is not. Also, I respectfully suggest both The Banner and DSNR step away from editing this article so the page can be cleaned up by neutral editors without being tainted by their ongoing edit war. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now DSNR is starting to accuse me of vandalism while vandalizing himself, I have to step back anyway because he is creeping under my skin. The Banner talk 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG. Examples of reliable sources that provide significant coverage include: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable and survived a very recent AfD by the same nominator as this one. Renominating this soon is disruptive, as is replacing an article with eight sources, with an article with two sources, one of which is the Daily mail (which is not a RS).Martin451 16:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same as others commenting here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]