Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 19 November 21 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. On the whole, many of the arguments for keeping strike me as flimsy at best. That said, it would be a significant stretch to say there's consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Saginaw

MV Saginaw (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 ship without claim of notability and with a single reference to a fansite. There are

Stuartyeates (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets look at these:
  • [7] is self published through
    WP:RS
    .
  • [8] is 648 words long and the ship is not the primary topic, so it's unlikely that the ship is covered in depth.
  • [9] I don't have access to, but the ship is not the primary topic.
  • [10] I don't have access to, but the ship is not the primary topic.
  • [11] is eight lines of routine coverage of its construction
  • [12] is this ship used to illustrate a barely-related article.
I acknowledge that there may be more, but they'd need to be better than these.
Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Per the General Notability Guideline, significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material" Dankarl (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've moved the article from
    Saginaw (ship, 1953) to MV Saginaw, the proper title, and have fixed the AfD so the move shouldn't screw up the closing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks.
Stuartyeates (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
As mentioned above Freighters of Manitowoc is selfpublished through
Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I apologize for a thought fart. My point was that in the past large ships have been considered "almost invariably notable" like Bushranger said above, especially if they are of one-off unique design. However, if we look at e.g. Mitsui 56 series, it's safe to say that an individual ship in that ship class of 151+ mass-produced bulk carriers is unlikely to be notable unless something happened to it. Tupsumato (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the ship is a rather unremarkable lake freighter. PKT(alk) 14:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suggest this discussion should be closed due to a lapse of collegiality on the part of the nominator.
    afd
    }}:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwasind
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongiara (ship, 1885)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankfurt (icebreaker)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keiler
I see this as seriously disruptive behavior.
We are all volunteers here, and all our time is valuable. In particular, the time of everyone participating here is valuable. If our nominator had instead read the earlier {{
prod
}} had to run. This would have spared the time of everyone else who has participated here.
I suggest we should not endorse {{
afd}} simply because they are not prepared to show the respect to other contributors required to take the time to answer civil and collegial questions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That seems like a non sequiteur, unless you're now bypassing the GNG. Is there any evidence that this ship is
notable? bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Not bypassing the GNG at all, which is a guideline, not a policy. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of sources available online which could be used to improve the article, as a quick search using her
IMO Number 5173786 proves. That the article as it currently stands needs improvement (infobox for a start), is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • We already have a guideline for notability of ships and of many other things. It's the
    general notability guideline. Is this ship notable? bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 24 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Down & Dirty

Down & Dirty (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'm still fairly new to using this site, but I've seen queries for deleted pages and by what I'm seen for deleted bands, I can easily say that I doubt this band can pass for any valid inclusion either.

They don't even have their album out, they're not signed and every source on this page is a YouTube link. Second Skin (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't see how the band could possibly pass
    notable enough to be covered here either. Stalwart111 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 21 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baz Mohammad Mubariz

Baz Mohammad Mubariz (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 Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Links given show he won one out of three fights. Don't know much about MMA but this doesn't seem very notable to me. Not really worth addressing the article's numerous cleanup issues since it looks beyond saving in any case. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 3 MMA fights (1 win) and no top tier fights or non-routine coverage. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the
    Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Fighting Championship

Rebel Fighting Championship (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)

Totally non-notable MMA organization - has not even held a single event Peter Rehse (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Vermont

Nicolas Vermont (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 - no top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 5 MMA fights (3-2 record) with none of them top tier. Only link is to his fight record. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced BLP about an MMA fighter with no top tier bouts. Papaursa (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the
    Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baz Mohammad Mubariz

Baz Mohammad Mubariz (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 Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Links given show he won one out of three fights. Don't know much about MMA but this doesn't seem very notable to me. Not really worth addressing the article's numerous cleanup issues since it looks beyond saving in any case. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 3 MMA fights (1 win) and no top tier fights or non-routine coverage. Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having on in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the
    Stuartyeates (talk) 00:14, 28 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Andrew Capasso

Carl Andrew Capasso (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)

While the article does cite reliable sources, I don't think that these sources include coverage of sufficient depth to support a biographical article. As far as I can tell, Capasso's claim to "notability" comes from his alleged affair with a beauty queen and his alleged bribery of a judge to get lower alimony payments in his divorce. (Newspaper reports also indicate he was convicted of tax fraud, but that's not really a claim to notability in itself.) Virtually all the press coverage seems to center around the

WP:ONEEVENT. *** Crotalus *** 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the creator. His coverage in reliable sources starts in 1987 at his conviction for tax evasion, and ends in 2001 at his death. He has obituaries in every major New York newspaper, and major coverage in a book that has full biographical details. The article is a stub but can contain more if others want to add more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion this article contains enough sourced material to pass WP:GNG. But perhaps more input is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough RS coverage for notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as having wide range of reliable sources. The wide publication of his obits speaks against BLP:1E
    Stuartyeates (talk) 00:16, 28 November 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 procedural close. An existing AFD is currently underway - feel free to contribute to that discussion

non-admin close). Stalwart111 00:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Carol Rosin

AfDs for this article:
Carol Rosin (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)

Suspicion of fabrication regarding claims of extraordinary career achievements

In the single online clip of the dozen mentioned clips, Carol Rosin claims:

- That in 1974, Wernher von Braun sent her, then a 6th grade school teacher, on a "mission".

- That three years later, she was a (quote) "Advisor to the People's Republic of China". I don't know what she means by that.

- That she visited over 100 countries starting in the late 1970s, which is quite a feat for someone so young, and that she learned about the respective governments' space programs.

The suspicion lies in that these last two credentials together seems the apex of her career, yet are not mentioned next to other achievements, despite having at least her own words as source, if not primary; while the (somewhat) toned-down, unsubstantiated achievements are listed.

My position on living bios is "non-notable until primary sources exist for claims of achievements", not that certain achievements are notable and some non-notable. I move that this article be nominated for deletion until such sources are added to the article itself. Henrik Erlandsson 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 22:01, 20 November 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. Not ruling out potential merging/redirecting as one user suggested, but there's no agreement to delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Eliot Prize (Truman State University)

T. S. Eliot Prize (Truman State University) (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 award. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish that this minor award is independently notable. The award is listed in many directories of literary prizes but these simply confirm the award's existence and don't serve to establish that it's notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received a reasonable amount of attention for a poetry prize, even including some attention in newspapers outside Missouri such as [14] and [15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Arxiloxos, and add the following. This Prize is relatively new, and it tries to identify talented newer voices. Winners such as Rhina Espaillat who have gone on to distinguished careers do list this prize in their CVs, and the Poetry Foundation, for example, includes it in poet biographies (see http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/rhina-p-espaillat ). I suspect that when one of the Prize's winners gets a Pulitzer, this Prize will be listed amongst the early indications of talent. The judges are notable - nearly all have Wikipedia entries. I think the Prize meets the notability criterion adequately. Easchiff (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here are more notices of the Prize, from Harvard, from a literary magazine, and from Verse Wisconsin. Easchiff (talk) 20:25, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Physics

Bass Physics (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 originally nominated this for speedy deletion per CSD A7, but the article creator on the talk page pointed out that they were being managed by a somewhat prominent promotor, so I decided that it might be better to take it here. There are still issues with advertising, as it looks like the creator represents the promotor. The article fails

WP:MUSIC and while the band might become notable in the future, it does not appear to have achieved notability yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a link to Barry Fey's Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Fey He is the founder of Feyline International, now run by his son, Tyler Fey. Here is a link describing Feyline's importance in Colorado: http://www.denver.org/events/organizations/detail?o=5244&t= Here is the link showing Bass Physics is managed under Feyline International and their booking is managed by Madison House: http://www.bassphysics.com/#!contact/c21nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feyline1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no notability presented, not even close to passing our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - No coverage whatsoever. notability is not inherited from whoever is promoting the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT DELETE - Not Notable. IndieNewsReview (talk) 15:56, 24 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosin

AfDs for this article:
Carol Rosin (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)

Fails

WP:QUESTIONABLE, and the third does not appear to exist. Rawlangs (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Vanity article that does not in any way establish the subject's notability. Thomas.W talk to me 21:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt.. After eight years there are still no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. My position on living bios is "non-notable until primary sources exist for claims of achievements", not necessarily that certain achievements are notable and some non-notable. However, I nominate this article for deletion unless and until sources for the claims are added to the article itself. (In the only clip, she adds claims of having visited over 100 countries at a young age and learned of their respective space programs, as well as having been "Advisor to the People's Republic of China". Both claims are strangely absent from the article, with the clip linked.) Henrik Erlandsson 22:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete unless/until we get some real sources. The nominator's concerns about the ones we have now are very well-founded. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If only a quarter of the claims in the article were true, we should be inundated with good sources... --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt The only sources are those associated with the subject, and they in turn are of doubtful notability.Martinlc (talk) 10:55, 25 November 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. Unsourced/does not attempt to establish notability. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Andrews Heath

Charles Andrews Heath (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)

WP:CSD#A7, but given the longevity of the article, thought best to take it here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A7 was previously rejected; still, neither the person nor the companies seem sufficiently notable. SuperMarioMan 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per

WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Robert Gruenberg

Robert Gruenberg (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)

WP:CSD#A7, but given the longevity of the article, thought best to take it here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Missed the mention of the pulitzer. (seriously jetlagged) Withdrawn. Toddst1 (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Carroll Binder

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

seemingly non-notable journalist whose notability appears to stem from donating money and papers to a university who established a scholarship in his name. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn per arxilos. Thanks for finding that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 20 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine White

Yasmine White (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for over 6 years. Appears to have been a successful junior athlete but I found no evidence of any success as a senior. A few items of local news coverage confirm some of the facts in the article ([19], [20], [21], [22]) but no other coverage found. This shows entries in two senior triathlons but without finishing either one. Michig (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no live sources and her only successes have been as a junior or younger. Youth events generally don't show notability and it's worse when there are no sources to even support those claims. Possible COI since article was created by an SPA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think sourcing should be an issue as long as someone (myself perhaps) is willing to spend a small amount of time reviving dead links. I don't think the argument that the article subject was successful as junior athlete and has had no results as a U23 or Elite athlete has any relevancy. I think her race results and national championships are enough to warrant her notability on a national scale vs. a local one, but trouble might arise in trying to find a national source (outside of USA Triathlon - whose references could be viewed as mere press releases). Not sure where she would fall under
    WP:NSPORT#Triathlon since it does not discuss juniors. BarkeepChat/$ 15:27, 22 November 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. Not ruling out recreating as a redirect (as perscribed by the OP) if somebody wishes to do so. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty

Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty (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)

Repeatedly turned into a redirect then restored or rewritten. No version adequately demonstrates this book's notability. No version has reliable-source references. See talk page for details. Recommended outcome: Redirect to

WP:CSD#G4) unless reliable sources demonstrating notability are provided. Acceptable outcomes: Redirect without history being kept, outright deletion. See Talk:Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty#Significant past versions for a list of significantly-different versions in the edit history and a cumulative list of references (none of which are reliable sources) across all versions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

This discussion has been listed at Talk:Sankar (film director)#Nomination of Kaappi marangalkkidayile penkutty for deletion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 20 November 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. Not a lot of participation here, but since it's already been deleted, I'm inclined to believe this isn't controversial. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEDesign

AfDs for this article:
AEDesign (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 article was previously deleted, but then I foolishly allowed it to be recreated through the Articles for Creation process. Unfortunately, CSD G4 doesn't apply because it's not identical to the deleted version. The current version still fails

WP:CORP, however. Cerebellum (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No signficant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's some mention of them, and if stuff like the cheap rickshawmobile come to fruition, then there's likely to be coverage then, so no prejudice to recreation in the future if that happens. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 22 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donald N. Wood

Donald N. Wood (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)

Unsourced for nearly 7 years. I could confirm that he has had a few books published but Google Scholar doesn't suggest he's widely cited. No coverage of him found at all. Michig (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I originally created this page at the request of a handful of Donald N. Wood's friends who were, shall we say, technology challenged (retirement+). The original effort was to get him in Wikipedia for a reference to other pages (e.g., Earlham College). Interestingly, just noted that someone edited off the alumni page for some reason. He recently moved to Davis California and is in the process of determining what his academic contributions to UC Davis will be (he was teaching at OLLI at Duke University prior to his move). If updating his page will keep it "alive," I will endeavor to do so. v908
Not really, unless you can demonstrate that he meets the guidance set out in
reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found a few things, such as winning the Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in 2005[23], a couple old academic book reviews of indeterminate length: [24][25][26] Cite count is low for PROF. Maybe if we can find a bunch more book reviews it would pass on AUTHOR #3. --
    talk) 01:30, 21 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velizar Dimov

Velizar Dimov (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Unsourced BLP, appears to have been written by the subject himself. A quick Google search doesn't indicate that this person ever played for the professional teams Slavia and Beroe that have been listed. PROD was contested by the article's creator, who is probably also the subject of the article, without providing a reason. While the article is no longer unsourced, albeit unreliably, the notability concerns remain. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 20 November 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. The article was deleted at 10:45, 22 November 2013 by

talk) 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

OS2World

OS2World (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)

Note that the photo shows only 2 members online.... This does not seem notable to me. Tritario (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: non-notable. a quick google search only shows the sited, a couple small blogs, and social media. Aunva7
  • Where is the article that was wrote? OS2World leaded the petition to open source IBM that is mentioned in OS/2 articles and also took part of the OOXML voting on Sweeden. It is a relevant site, I disagree with your arguments Martiniturbide (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

talk) 18:44, 20 November 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.


Martiniturbide (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipediands to do discuss, they just delete content and knowledge. There is not use to help improving wikipedia, I prefer joining efforts with the Internet Archive.[reply]

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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dr. Khalid A. AdDamigh

Prof. Dr. Khalid A. AdDamigh (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 person seems non-notable. He's a professor at a university, an advisor to the saudi arabian ministry of education, and cultural attache of a cultural center. This article used to be a resume, but has now been somewhat truncated, although there is still a huge undue weight issue. Benboy00 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete bordering on speedy per CSD G11. I nominated one of the previous creations of this article for a speedy delete as a copy-vio, because it was a copy and paste of the CV from the university page, which had reserved rights. It doesn't appear at first glance to be a copy vio anymore, but the list of works and projects is fairly promotional. I'm not sure if it quite qualifies for speedy deletion per G11, but he certainly fails
    WP:PROF, which I check again after making sure that it wasn't the CV reposted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kfcc sa You can check his personal website (http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Work-experience.aspx & http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Committees-and-Organisations.aspx) and you will see that his work experience and what has he done for higher education in many countries beside Saudi Arabia. You can check his awards: http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Khalid/Pages/Awards_E0328-4387.aspx. — Kfcc sa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Many of the arguments for keeping seem extremely weak, forcing me to discount them. GNG issues prevail. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson

Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson (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)

Contested PROD by author with no rationale given. Article's subject fails

fully professional league or represented his country at senior international level. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources you've listed all refer to his transfer which is considered no more than routine coverage. The article is suppose to be biographical but the only meaningful coverage he has had is about his transfer which can't be the sole basis for an article. WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The main topic of those sources you've provided is the transfer itself not Mr. Friðjónsson, that's why article is so lacking in content. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
literally thousands of football fans will be asking who is this new striker that has signed for celtic, not to recognise there is a wide interest in the details of his career so far and have an article about him when all the newspapers are reporting it is really silly IMHO. --nonsense ferret 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Look at the number of page views too today? --nonsense ferret 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it maybe highly searched but Wikipedia
isn't a newspaper it is an encyclopedia, not for the purpose of pleasing football fans of which I am one. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BLP1E - "young player signs for big club" - we see literally hundreds of these articles every bloody year and they always get deleted. GiantSnowman 13:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't one of those situations of a single byeline in a couple of newspapers which I agree is the norm for young players in big clubs. In this situation all the major national TV channels led with this story in their flagship news. The player will be playing first team football in January and the case then for recreating this article will be unarguable. In the meantime we have an unusual amount of high profile coverage for a player in this situation, which is a lot more than other first team players in lesser teams in the same league will have received who nonetheless have automatic qualification due to NFOOTY with hardly any coverage. Time for a common sense solution recognising the unusual media frenzy that attracts any player signing for the first team of an absolutely massive club, pointless to delete now and have to recreate this in four weeks while in the meantime it is attracting a lot of hits. --nonsense ferret 13:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC) The player should sit on this list as number 19, Celtic_F.C.#First_team_squad - not to have a page for the player seems silly looking at the list. --nonsense ferret 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
is not a crystal ball his debut for Celtic is not certain to take place nor can we keep an article for aesthetic reasons which is what the latter part of your latest reply suggests. If this debate is closed as delete you can have article userified and you can re-add it to the mainspace if & when he makes his debut. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Per CBALL I would say that looking at the comments made by the manager this player at the very least managing a few minutes of time in the team in the very near future is "almost certain" within the terms of CBALL - really who would bet against it? My point is not an aesthetic one, it is that if you are signed clearly and demonstrably with the intention to be used as a first team player for a club like that, due to the interest from the media, the unusual weight and depth of coverage pushes it beyond the classic 'young player signs for the youth team of a big club' situation - bit of
WP:COMMONSENSE is called for I reckons. --nonsense ferret 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) There are precedents of previous deletion discussions in somewhat similar circumstances - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fraser_Aird_(2nd_nomination) - the situation may not be as clear cut as is being suggested. --nonsense ferret 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - Except that all the coverage is about a single transfer of the player from one club to another, therefore
    WP:BLP1E as has been noted several times above. Until he actually starts playing he doesn't pass NFOOTY, and even then there may well be questions around GNG if he only ends up playing a handful of game. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 23 November 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. There are some valid arguments made by those who wish to delete this, but there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith. I would suggest that the page's author seek help at

talk) 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) (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 individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

WP:BIO reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - There is no obvious reason that this page should be deleted. Edits were made to resolve the earlier criticism by reddogsix on three points:
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."
(1)The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2012)
(2)This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012)
(3) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (October 2012)
In response to the above:
(1) Armstrong has a long and established record in his area.
(2) There are no self-published sources on the page
(3) All the sources are reputable and independent third party publishers.
I strongly support this page being kept on, and am not sure why the deletion notice is continuing -- I have asked reddogsix to explain (his) further objections, but without a response. Durandus (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I was involved in "real-life". 8-)
As indicated above, the "individual [is] lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail
WP:AUTHOR. Also please provide valid references in the article to support those comments. reddogsix (talk
)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not pass our notability guidelines. The
    WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -
From
WP:AUTHOR
:
Extended content
  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

A. The Foreword of Armstrong's first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), was written by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, a major Catholic catechist and author, whose cause is now being considered for sainthood. He gave a glowing recommendation of Armstrong's apologetics in the Foreword, and he is listed on Wikipedia, too.

B. Dr. Scott Hahn: probably the most well-known Catholic apologist today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002; albeit self-published). He has a Wikipedia entry as well.

C. Joseph Pearce: arguably the leading Catholic biographer alive today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's latest book, The Quotable Newman. He also has a Wikipedia entry.

D. The esteem and importance in which Armstrong and his work is held by virtually all the most important fellow Catholic apologists across the board is shown in what they have said about him, in unsolicited remarks. These are listed on his Literary Resume page online:

Dr. Scott Hahn: "Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents." / "Thanks again for the great work you're doing for Christ and His Church."

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author): "I always appreciate your work."

Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home): "You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!"

Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist and prolific author [listed in Wikipedia]; editor of Envoy Magazine): "I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church." / "Keep up the fantastic work with "Biblical Catholicism." All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it."

Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press): "Your site continues to look good and to be among the most useful."

Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster; listed in Wikipedia): "There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong."

Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books; listed in Wikipedia): "I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site."

Moreover, the fact that Armstrong has been published by four major Catholic publishers of apologetics is significant: Sophia Institute Press (it specializes in Catholic classics, and Armstrong is its best-selling author): five books; Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher, with a Wikipedia entry): a pamphlet (Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked) and notes for the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible; Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization, and Saint Benedict Press (eight books in all, and a very popular pamphlet) shows that he is widely respected in this sub-community, as an author and apologist. He also worked on staff for three years as an online moderator for the forum at The Coming Home Network: a major and well-known Catholic organization.

He has been published in many of the important Catholic apologetics magazines, multiple times: This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), The Catholic Answer, The Coming Home Newsletter, Envoy Magazine, and The Latin Mass, among others.

He has appeared about twenty times on Catholic radio shows,several of them nationally syndicated (EWTN), such as Catholic Answers Live (twice), Catholic Connection (Teresa Tomeo), Kresta in the Afternoon (three times), and Faith and Family Live (Steve Wood), among others.

  • "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Armstrong specializes in "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (the name of his website), and this is considered an important aspect of modern Catholic apologetics. He consciously writes books for the masses and tries to make Catholicism more understandable to them. If it is objected that he is not an academic, it should also be noted that many of the most famous and influential and respected Catholic apologists were and are not, either, or (like Armstrong) had no theological degree or formal training. G. K. Chesterton had no college degree at all. Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, and Malcolm Muggeridge were academics, but not in theology, as was the Anglican C. S. Lewis (an English professor). Karl Keating and Frank Sheed were lawyers. This is nothing new. There are plenty of lay Catholic apologists, fully encouraged by the Catholic Church.

  • "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Armstrong's work has been the subject of numerous prominent feature articles and interviews in the Catholic community. He has these listed online, on his Literary Resume page:

A. He received the award, Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for "Best New Evangelist" (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10).

B. His website (online since February 1997, with nearly 2,500 articles) was positively reviewed in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998.

C. "Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics' "Socratic Evangelist," interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature "Diplomatic Corps," Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9.

D. Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004.

E. Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight.

F. Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, August 26 - September 1, 2007 issue.

G. His book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (Lulu) was reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Fr. Stravinskas will also in the near future write reviews of Armstrong's two "officially published" books in 2012: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers) and The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press).

H. "'Can I Get a Quote on That?': An Interview With Dave Armstrong," Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist (who hosts shows on Chesterton on the EWTN television network), is a leading expert on Chesterton. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society (Ahlquist is President). It was devoted primarily to Armstrong's book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton.

I. "My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz," of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011)

J. "Ten must-see web resources for Catholics" (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; Armstrong's full-time apologetics ministry was one of the ten profiled).

K. "Lessons from Catholic Evangelists," by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012. [Armstrong was cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article]

L. Reviews of Armstrong's books on Amazon come from a variety of well-known, active fellow apologists, and his books are rated highly (usually four stars or above).

  • "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Armstrong's body of work (even ten of his self-published Lulu books, as in this instance), was regarded so highly that a set of them was published by Logos Bible Software: the leading company devoted to online / computer / electronic Christian and biblical resources. They offer the Dave Armstrong Collection. This is doubly significant because Logos is primarily a Protestant organization. They do have a Catholic division now, and Armstrong is one of the few living Catholic authors included. If we include these published works, it brings Armstrong's total of "officially" (not only self-published works) to eighteen, which is quite notable and significant for any author to achieve.

Furthermore, the libraries that stock Armstrong's books indicate the importance given to them:

A. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) -- this can be verified at Google books -- is carried in the libraries of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Marquette University, Harvard Divinity School, and at least 23 others.

B. The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is in eleven libraries.

C. The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is also carried in eleven libraries.

D. Even Protestant seminaries and colleges carry his books. Dallas Theological Seminary has three of Armstrong's Sophia books. Liberty University has The Catholic Verses. Hope College, Geneva College, Abilene Christian University, Master's Seminary, and three others have one or more of his books.

Moreover, his thus far self-published book, The Quotable Wesley, is being seriously considered for publication, by a major Wesleyan publisher, Beacon Hill Press (no small feat for a Catholic apologist, if it is accepted).

Lastly, if it is objected that Armstrong publishes books on his own, in addition to his eighteen "official" ones, it should be noted that they (or a revision, as in one case) were later published by conventional publishers in four instances (and with three of those, even with minimal additional editing). This includes his most famous title, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. If The Quotable Wesley is "officially" published, that will be the fifth time this has happened. This, along with the Logos Collection, indicates the high quality even of his self-published work, and of his editing skills (in the case of collections of quotations). His body of "official" work (eighteen volumes published by reputable five publishers, including a Protestant one) is indeed substantial and noteworthy: hardly deserving of the disdain shown by the reviewers who wish to delete his entry.

Logos-Word 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not going to wade through everything you've posted above, especially since much of it is obviously flawed. The standards of the people who have published his books has nothing to do with notability, the libraries that carry his books have nothing to do with notability, his theological qualifications have nothing to do with notability, the people who have said nice things about his books have nothing to do with notability, the number of times his books have been printed has nothing to do with notability. Hut 8.5 21:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright; granted I am new at Wikipedia and am not intimately familiar with every jot and tittle of Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that I addressed (at least in part of my remarks) what you were asking for. If you dismiss all the elements you cite above, they still (it seems to me) have relevance for the inclusion of an author (but maybe not), which is one thing "reddogsix" was critiquing. If we stick to notability alone (your big beef), let's look at what you yourself objected to. You wrote: "The
general notability guideline
asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I provided plenty of those (if you even read them), and they are (seems to me) significant:
1) Book reviews in well-known Catholic periodicals: Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Insight, National Catholic Register, The Catholic Response, and Gilbert Magazine. If you are unfamiliar with these (depending on how much you know about the Catholic and Catholic apologetics worlds), you can look them up (especially the first and third).
2) Website award (1998) from Envoy Magazine, and website reviews in New Covenant and OSV Newsweekly.
3) Interviews in Envoy Magazine and The Catholic World Report.
Between all of them, that is eight different periodicals. Is that enough? How many are required? Does a high number of published books (by independent publishers) have to do with notability? Does being published by five notable publishers have to do with it? If 18 books of such a nature is not "notable" in a field (Armstrong's number), what is? 30, 40 books? Virtually no Catholic apologists have accomplished that, nor many authors in any field. So it leaves me scratching my head, as to what is required here. As I read the notability guidelines, Armstrong seems to qualify.
Logos-Word 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete As already stated above, that's a lot of text to read; and frankly, I don't know where to begin. While some of it does bring up a few points, most of it still doesn't help the article meet notability guidlines. Strictly as an editor reviewing at the article, this doesn't even have enough citations. The three references are made up by two from the subject's blog, and one from a blogger that reccomends the subject's work. While the last one was from a reputable source, it can still be argued if that really counts. To have notability you need to have citations from a number of sources, which the article does not have. How many books that subject has published does not contribute to notability, as already stated above. I'm going to have to put my vote in for deletion on this one. CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a few hours today adding several links to the article, precisely in order to overcome these objections, but that has been deleted[30] (some kind of "conflict edit"): apparently because I added a link to Armstrong's blog and this was impermissible (as I said above, I'm new at this Wikipedia stuff). Now we have to re-invent the wheel. The last comment again gives the same tired objection of not having "citations from a number of sources," which is what I described above and tried to add to the article. But if the new material is simply deleted for some reason, then I have wasted my time. Armstrong's credentials: which I believe meet notability criteria, are mentioned above. I described them in detail because people were making out that he had none (the original complaint implied that he was self-published only). So I provided plenty of his credentials (what I thought was relevant for notability; perhaps some of it was not), only to have people complain that I write too much. Oh well; I tried. Logos-Word 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - What continues to be missed in the above dissertation is the lack of
    notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Sorry, Logos-Word, you still are not getting it. Per
    WP:GNG, but reviews of the book, what others quote from your book in their newspaper article, magazine article, and book may be independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources because they usually do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You need to forget the sources that are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and the sources that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone articles). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong' -
    WP:GNG does not require the writings of a person to be famous writings. GNG only requires that there be enough independent coverage on a topic for a stand alone article on that topic. The sum of all human knowledge includes topics that are limited to the writings of scholars, authors, and other writers. At present, we force writer topics to qualify for a biography article to allow their independently sourced writing information to appear in Wikipedia in a stand alone article. Wikipedia needs to change that to align it's efforts to match what the reliable sources in fact are writing when it comes to scholars, authors, and other writers. This Dave Armstrong topic is as good starting test case as any (perhaps an even better test case due to the nature of the writings). Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong. If the closing admin closes as keeps renames to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong,' I would be happy to bring this same argument at DRV as a test case. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[33] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic. You may want to add URL links to each of those further reading sources by placing the information in
    WP:GNG towards a Wikipedia article on Writings of Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) qualifying for a stand alone article at AfD. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" does not help at this AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Uzma Gamal asked: "You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic." Nice try. I did that precisely because you wrote, above: "Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources . . . Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone [sic] articles)." Thus, I posted articles from periodicals. Most of them do not have a link since most are not online, or no longer online (and you said websites and blogs are unreliable anyway): but they can be checked, just as any bibliographical source can be. These articles are "out there." They exist. Others have a link, but it is to Armstrong's site (he cut-and-pasted the articles onto his blog in several instances; e.g., the interview with Dale Ahlquist of Gilbert Magazine, about Chesterton), and I was informed above that links to his blog are automatically deleted, because (who knows why?) it has caused problems of some sort in the past. Thus, those sources can't be added, and no one can go read them (unless they search independently). Yet other articles are only available in a temporary archive at Catholic Answers (e.g., four articles published in This Rock in 2004), so I thought it best not to make those links. Links to the articles I added (where they exist at all: and some are already obsolete) can be found on Armstrong's "Literary Resume" page on his blog (linked from the top right of the home page): this is where most of the info. I have added was found. Other possible links would be on Internet Archive only, which I deemed best not to bother including (figuring -- the way it has been going -- the validity would be disputed).

This is my explanation for what I did. It was a perfectly rational response from a "Wikipedia rookie" (I probably screwed up again in some fashion, regarding these endless guidelines, but I'm explaining my rationale, from where I sit and what I know about Wikipedia policies at this point: which obviously ain't much! LOL). The whole process is far more complicated than I ever realized. In any event, I've spent more than enough time here (way too much, in retrospect). If the article goes down, it goes down. It's pointless for me to spend more of my time on this when it seems to be a futile effort, on all counts. I will say, however (on a positive note) that it's heartening to me to see that Wikipedia has such high standards, because I'm an enthusiastic advocate of Wikipedia and use it all the time (and always defend it when folks run it down as a supposedly altogether unreliable, unscholarly source). Thus, despite my present exasperation and frustration over having wasted so much of my time for what may end up as "nothing", I'm truly delighted to see this rigor and high concern for accuracy and substantiation. I'm one with y'all there. But I don't have time to keep pursuing this, and it's no high priority to me at all. It's become a "diminishing returns" scenario, so I'm done with the effort. Thanks for listening to my opinions and bearing with my considerable ignorance of Wikipedia policies (for which I apologize). For what it's worth, I agree with the reasoning that the article could or should be kept as a "Writings of" article (presumably modified accordingly). That makes sense, but others (who know the ropes around here) will have to argue that case. Logos-Word 11:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep.

WP:SK#1. This is a matter for normal discussion and editing, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

List of One Direction members

List of One Direction members (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)

Propose merge to One Direction#Members. Launchballer 17:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – AFD is for deletion;
    Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is for merge proposals. –anemoneprojectors– 17:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan women's national cricket team

Afghanistan women's national cricket team (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 article does not meet

WP:GNG for notability. Bhtpbank (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Evidence of non trivial coverage in reliable sources - [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. These just from the first page of a google search. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the above sources. I'd be interested to know why the nominator thinks that the articles fails
    WP:BEFORE not being followed? StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - per the above sources, as well as the subject matter further meeting

WP:CRIN as it is about a national cricket team. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:26, 20 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam Software

Veeam Software (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 do not see anu claim to current notability in this promotional article-- I see claims that they hope to become a notable company. someday DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and possibly speedy delete - This company was the subject of an article that was deleted as a result of a
    Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\talk 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
AfDs for this article:
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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biagini Passo – Golf Country Cabrio

Biagini Passo – Golf Country Cabrio (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 references, not very many Google results, very little coverage in reliable sources.

talk to me 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicative of Volkswagen Golf Mk1#Golf Cabriolet and insufficiently noteworthy for a separate article. Dashed title does not make for a plausible redirect term. "Golf Cabriolet" and "Biagini Passo" yield more results than "Golf Country Cabrio", and could be created as redirects. SuperMarioMan 20:17, 26 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajper

Rajper (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)

Fails

WP:GNG. This is basically just a family name: not all names are notable. The clan seems to exist - see here - but I can find no reliable sources that discuss it. Mere existence does not confer notability and redirecting to, say, Naushahro Feroze District is inappropriate because they could be in other districts also. Sitush (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. One-sentence article with no claim of significance and no clear redirect target. SuperMarioMan 20:53, 26 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SCP - WANDER

SCP - WANDER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "SCP - WANDER" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Poorly referenced article about an non-existent, non-notable video game. - MrX 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 20 November 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Reid

Thomas J. Reid (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 Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 November 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. Redirects are cheap, so while there seems to be a rough agreement that the title is an unlikely search term, somebody may wish to recreate this as a redirect. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woody's Roundup

Woody's Roundup (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)

Not notable, unsourced, fails

t • c) 10:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 November 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. I've read this entire discussion, as well as the article's talk page and comments about it at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 149#Why is the Arbitration Committee undeleting libel instead of oversighting it?, and while there has been quite a bit to sift through, consensus seems clear to me. It has long been accepted that BLP, especially BLP1E, overrides GNG, which may have been technically met here. By numbers, a vast majority of participating users have voted in favor of deletion and/or redirecting. By reasoning—the more important metric—that same side of the debate also seems to prevail, essentially arguing that while the subject of the article has been discussed within extensive journalism, the entire body of coverage is of a transient nature. In its current state, the article is an indiscriminate collection of negative events (non-events, in most cases) in this person's life which have been dug up by the media. The sentences are heavily sourced, but hardly well-sourced.

Combine marginal notability of the subject with content issues relating to potential libel and disproportionately negative text, and the outcome of this discussion presents itself quite clearly. It's worth noting that I am forced to almost completely discount one comment in favor of keeping the page, because it discusses the nominator instead of the article. More broadly, comments strictly relating to the subject's motives have had no bearing on my decision here. It's also important to acknowledge the fact that at least three editors changed their opinions during the course of the discussion, and appear to all support deletion as of this timestamp. I foresee some controversy following this decision, but having weighed my options here, I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Note that this does not rule out potential recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for future passers-by: the article is bluelinked because it has been recreated as a redirect. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Karr, Reich's former name, is also redirected to the JonBenet page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexis Reich

AfDs for this article:
Alexis Reich (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. LFaraone 18:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghani Family

Ghani Family (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)

An article on a non notable Pakistani business family that fails

WP:GNG. Their business is somewhat notable so I tried to redirect to that page but the editor who started this article probably opposes it. SMS Talk 09:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 09:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes and the article was created by
    self promotion and conflict of interest. Alex discussion ★ 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable family. Anything about them that is relevant to a notable business can be included in those articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable group of people; could have been speedied as an A7 once again. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug (Starship Troopers)

Bug (Starship Troopers) (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)

Unreferenced article (outside primary sources) on fictional concept. The topic could be salvaged, perhaps, if rewritten using sources on Heinlein's political and social analysis, but note that the current article doesn't touch upon those topics at all. It is pure fancruft, describing fictional aliens without any serious attempt to provide a social or literaly analysis of the concept. As such, there's precious little content to salvage for encyclopedia, through we may want to ping http://starshiptroopers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page which could use this content. CC editors who expressed interest in this topic before: User:DGG, User:Wellspring, User:Noclevername, User:TheMightyShoeHorn Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cited information into

WP:OR and WP:Fancruft.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not an expert on this subject, but actually that's why I think we should keep this. I only found myself noticing that this debate was going on because I was trying to find out something about
    Juan Rico, who's the protagonist of Starship Troopers. Of course I started clicking through to other articles about the book/film series, and I found this article. Is it something that I'm particularly interested in? No. I certainly don't play any of the various computer games that contain these various "bugs", but if I were such a player I'd really appreciate this article. Right now my own little task on Wikipedia is tidying up articles about villages in Burkina Faso. I'm pretty sure that not many people care about this, but for the few people who do consult Wikipedia on Mangodara Department it's helpful information. In the same way, this article about "bugs" is what I think is called "domain specialist" information: 99% of the people on the planet don't care about this, but for the 1% who do it's probably very useful. It's also useful to keep the information on a separate page, because that way it doesn't clutter up the main Starship Troopers article with stuff that most readers would probably not need. The thing is, one day I (or anyone else) might suddenly decide to take an interest in "bugs", and if I (or they) do Wikipedia will be the first place we'll look for information. If we had a Wikipedia that only contained things that I, or even all the people in this debate, currently thought were important, we'd have a much diminished project, and I'd rather not have that. I hope this is OK. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • User:RomanSpa: I appreciate your thought, but - try again. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful why your current argument, as I see it, is not valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Piotrus: Sorry for phrasing this wrongly. I'm basically just an ordinary editor, so I may not have phrased things right. What I meant was that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's a really big one. It's like we're really a whole bunch of specialist encyclopedias: you can start by reading the main article about something, but then if you get interested you don't have to go away and find a separate encyclopedia just about that subject, you can sort of "drill down" (I think that's the phrase) to get more and more depth. In some areas we can "drill down" a really long way (e.g. battleships, Star Trek): Wikipedia is already a great specialist encyclopedia for those subjects, if you need it to be. In other areas we can't do this yet, but as time goes by we will improve in these areas. This article should stay because an expert in the adaptation of Heinlein's work to different media would regard the way that bugs are differently portrayed in these media as an important issue. Exactly how the "bugs" differ in different books and films is certainly specialist knowledge (in the same way that the different Starship Enterprises are specialist knowledge - a Star Trek expert needs this information and would regard it as significant, but most people wouldn't), but to a "domain specialist" this is significant and notable information, and that's why the article should stay. RomanSpa (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others but purge fancruft. The book American Science Fiction and the Cold War: Literature and Film has a good passage for this topic: "The main enemy is the Bugs whose organisation resembles that of ants, the 'ultimate dictatorship of the hive'... They embody a 'total communism' presided over by bug 'commissars'. In short the Bugs represent the perceived characteristics of Soviet Communism transposed, after a defeat of the 'Chinese Hegemony' in the novel's future history, on to an alien species." Also, the Futures journal article "Bug Planet: Frontier Myth in Starship Troopers" states, "Heinlein and Verhoeven's construction of the Bugs... is at the centre of this machine's functioning: despite their blatant Otherness, despite the fact that 'they look the way they do' they are far from being 'just stupid insects'. In fact, crucially, 'they co-operate even better than we do', 'don't know how to surrender' and are thus a lethal enemy, exhibiting a frightful intelligence, and Heinlein intimates, the expansionist urges intrinsic to any successful race... The machine is thus granted a teleological grounding: it must be thus because it can only be thus: without violent expansionism, the human race would be annihilated, not by its own self-destructive 'closed world' frustrations, but by the territorial ambitions of the alien Other." This is most definitely a viable topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that material is already in Starship Troopers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an article titled Insect-like alien be possible? That would make more sense to me. Rather than saying all the others are really Heinlein's, as this article, not intentionally, suggests. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think that title is better? I think the current title indicates that it is the alien species in the Starship Troopers media. "Insect-like alien" is vague, and I'm not sure if we have the sources to have that kind of more general scope. Sources are more likely to exist in the context of Starship Troopers. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people here have suggested that insect-like aliens are a major trope in science fiction, which a quick WP search showed existed before Heinlein. I expect this article to be kept, and really have no problem with that. Interested readers might also check out Extraterrestrials in fiction, which could be improved and expanded quite a bit. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Erik's finds of RS'ed commentary showing the topic meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers)

Mobile Infantry (Starship Troopers) (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 article fails

WP:GNG as written. Little in the text suggests importance outside the fictional setting, and two refs of dubious reliability are 404 anyway. CC editors who expressed interest in this article before: User:DGG, User:Wellspring, User:Kross Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You make reasonable points. I really think the overall topic of MI across all works is a product of original research, even if sources compare each version to the original. Putting them together is OR. I kind of see fancruft as more like something addressed only to serious fans and/or players of the work in question, not so much about the amount of detail. And BTW I also would argue against an article solely on Heinlein's MI saying that we don't need two articles one starting: "Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein about the Mobile Infantry, a fictional future elite military force." znd the other: "The Mobile Infantry is a fictional future elite military force which is the subject of Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel Starship Troopers." They are really the same thing, in effect here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DGG: Interesting, but we really need reliable source to prove that this concept is notable. At present the article has nada, and nothing specific has been presented here (as in: no quotations, no page numbers, no works that discuss it clearly in title). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really about lack of sources. To me it's more about people not being able to understand that there is a difference between one of the most important books of the Twentieth Century and some movie, TV show, or video game. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 20 November 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Politically related deaths of Iranians

Politically related deaths of Iranians (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

Ibrahim.ID 02:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The opening line of "Deaths of many Iranians have generated political controversy" is a bad start, then it goes downhill fast. Def.
    WP:NOT policies breached here too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 13 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons articulated above Kabirat (talk) 08:20, 21 November 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) 08:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John McGranaghan

John McGranaghan (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 subjects notability is unimportant. The subjects notability exists over a single crime that he didn't commit nor was a part of. The article is essentially a short rewrite of the two obituaries that it is sourced to. I fail to see any importance in this stub. Keegan (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 07:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    talk) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, not notable. John Reaves 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A release on appeal after 10 years might indicate that this was a notorious case of a miscarriage of justice. I do not recall the case, but that might make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources to establish notability or justify inclusion per
    WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:30, 26 November 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. A discussion about a merger may be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Acupuncture Trials

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is insufficient depth and breadth of secondary coverage to warrant a standalone article on this topic (a number of clinical trials on acupuncture in the 2000s). After deletion, a mention of them might be considered for the main

COI 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

This is an article about 3 very large RCTs which were instigated at the behest of a number of German statutory health insurances. They are notable because on the basis of their result (among other), the
User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru are trying to take this article apart because of anti-acupuncture bias. They already deleted most of the article on the grounds that the sources were not reliable (the primary ones because they are primary, the secondary one - from the Federal Joint Committee itself - because it allegedly was not independent), without consensus. I've appealed to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard already, but the case is still pending. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Removing 90% of referenced article's content, and then AfD-ing it, is problematic enough that a user conduct discussion may be merited somewhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. petrarchan47tc 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is one of the largest acupuncture clinical trials and the study affected the decisions of a government health organization -A1candidate (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your iVote was marked as Delete in the Stats. petrarchan47tc 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Would be happy with Blue and Scray's suggestion. However once it is summarized it can likely be merged into a section on "society and culture" in the accupucture article.
talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
However, if the article is kept and once the primary sources are deleted it might be merged into the acupuncture article. We would have to evaluate the article based on secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ample evidence of effect on insurance coverage makes it notable; I'm less equipped to judge medical notability, but the NHS reference, for one, suggests it may also be notable in that area. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the "NHS" content had been added to the article in a misleading way. The NHS runs an information service called "NHS Choices" which routinely reacts items of medical news; here it was giving an equivocal response (not the sure "conclusion" as was written in the article). In reality the NHS position comes from guidance published by the
COI 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete and incorporate into acupuncture; it's because of the latter/parent topic that the trials are notable. -- Scray (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Keep based on User:Bluerasberry's formulation below (i.e. remove inadequately-sourced medical content, and focus on sociopolitical impact of the trials, where their notability rests). -- Scray (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is currently a massive
    WP:FRINGE failure by relegating criticism to the bottom of the article. It does also appear to be overly detailed. WP:FRINGE says we need to appropriately marginalise pseudoscience, so delete is my view. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: Regardless of any scientific merit of the study, the impact on German insurance policy appears to be notable and well-documented. Balance issues should be dealt with on the article talkpage, not AfD. --Carnildo (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article does need changes. It should be kept because these clinical trials are notable - the Spiegel and Focus articles are reliable sources and supplemented by others which also seem to be good. This article should not have coverage of acupuncture or opinions on acupuncture - it should only talk about the results of this trial and how those results have been used to influence policy in Germany. This is not a medical article - rather this is an article about a clinical trial and its impact on society and politics. All information without a citation should be removed. Content which is cited only to the report of the research study itself or other primary sources should be removed. Other people in this RfD claim that this article makes statements about acupuncture which are unrelated to this study - if those are here then they should be removed, but I do not see them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COI 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
clinicaltrials.gov to give a third-party opinion about the minimal amount of information which the public ought to have when clinical research is happening in their community. I would want this article and all articles on clinical trials to include study specifications which define the research, but that would not contribute to notability or influence any deletion discussions. If the article is worth keeping then a bit of reference data is worth including, from primary sources or otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Bluerasberry, are you familiar with the "Society and culture" section per
Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections ? For what reason would the negligible salvageable text about policy not be included in a Society and culture section at acupuncture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not an article about a medical topic so medmos does not apply in that way. All the medicine can be stripped out of this article and a major research project remains, and one can still talk about participants, funding, media reactions, and many other things having nothing to do with medical practices. This article should not make medical claims about acupuncture, so medmos guidelines about keeping medical content out of non-medical articles do apply. Users should go to acupuncture to read about the medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is not an article about a medical topic but the current article is a medical article about the trial itself. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross
WP:COATHOOK article. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. All the medicine cannot be stripped out of this article because editors at the article think it is a medical article. If the non-notable medical claims are removed from the article there may only be a few sources on how a clinical trial impacted the society and politics. The current state of the article makes it impossible for editors at the AFD to determine if the topic is notable. Two articles in Spiegel and Focus are not enough to claim this article is notable. Again, the primary sources are being used in this article to make statements about the acupuncture trial itself to discuss medical information that is unrelated to how a clinical trial impacted society and politics. Do you see the unrelated medical information and do you think that information must be removed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:FRINGE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I have heard this from another anti-acupuncture editor as well: Acupuncture allegedly is
WP:FRINGE applies to all Alternative medicine articles on WP by definition" [40]. Without being an acupuncture proponent, I strongly object to this view. I mean, just read the Acupuncture#Pain section: there's over half a dozen meta-reviews there finding evidence that acupuncture is effective. I personally agree that the clinical benefit is too small to bother. But how can you compare this to things like Creationism? --Mallexikon (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not "anti-acupuncture" but I am anti-quack (which is relevant, I suppose). So, you are saying that a medical system that claims to cure a wide variety of human ailments by sticking needles into certain parts of the body to control an undetectable energy called "qi" is not fringe? Seriously ..
COI 09:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Primary sources are continuing to be dumped all over the article to make medical claims that is unrelated to the impact on society and politics. Blue Rasberry, do you support the primary sources being use to make medical claims? Editors think the article is about the trial itself and not necessarily about "how a clinical trial impacted society". QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QG, the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) is an independent body that decides over which therapies are reimbursable by the statutory health insurances in Germany and which not. It did not set up the GERAC trials or even ask for them. I explained this to you a couple of times already now: [41], [42], [43]. The report they published about the GERAC trials thus is a secondary source - and probably the most important one in this article since based on this report, they decided that acupuncture is reimbursable (in certain conditions). --Mallexikon (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:SECONDARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. The dated Joint Fed. Committee report is part of the event because they decided to reimburse acupuncture treatment for low back pain and knee pain. That makes them a primary source because they are part of the event. The low level details about the trial itself are not important because this is not supposed to be a medical article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
God damn it! The Federal Joint Committee is the body that approves what new cancer medication will be paid for by the statutory health insurances next year! They are NOT part of GERAC, the just reviewed and evaluated them (together with a couple of other acupuncture trials)! What "event" do you keep mumbling about? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus here that if this article stays, it should focus on the historical event which was the granting of a certain status to acupuncture in Germany which qualified it as eligible for insurance claims. The committee that was central to this decision was a prime participant and the documents it emitted are primary documents. We need secondary sources with independent commentary on what happened.
COI 09:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see a problem in using an independent source other than the Federal Joint Committee regarding information about the FJC's own decisions. But regarding GERAC itself, the FJC's paper constitutes a highly reliable secondary source (a review of several acupuncture trials, actually). Why are you trying to deny this? --Mallexikon (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails
COI 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There is an article about
Wikipedia:COATHOOK article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is another example of primary sources used in the article to discuss the trial itself. Any attempt to delete any medical information about the trial itself is being restored. So this is not an article about "how a clinical trial impacted society". QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone still questioning the notability of the article? The entire discussion seems to have gone off track and I don't see how this is supposed to be a coatrack article as you claim, since it only describes these studies and the consequences of them. -A1candidate (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a coat rack. Take for example the statement (in Wikipedia's voice, mark you) that the osteoperosis osteoarthritis trial result "amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". This is an out-of-date medical trial being laundered through a non-
COI 11:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you mean "osteoarthritis" instead of "osteoperosis"? In any case, the sentence which you're quoting appears to be taken from the results of the trials. Whether these results are out-of-date or not isn't the issue here. -A1candidate (talk)
QED. This article is being used to relay poor-quality biomedical information, which runs counter to Wikipedia's aim to ensure that "biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge".
COI 12:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Alexbrn
also raises serious and valid concerns that this article has problems, including these:
  • the trials' results have been disproven
  • this information is outdated
  • medical claims are made here contrary to MEDRS
  • this article is not NPOV
  • the article itself is written in a way which does not correctly interpret the sources
  • primary sources are being used inappropriately
  • acupuncture itself is not based on a scientifically sound premise
  • "This article is being used to relay poor-quality biomedical information"
I will grant all of these points. The only counterpoint I have to all of these is that the subject of this article has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources written by authors who are independent of the subject. None of the concerns stated address this article's meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or constitute an exclusion criteria. As A1candidate says, the concerns posed are not addressing the notability of the subject of this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the primary sources are only being used to discuss acupuncture medical information about the trials itself. The current version is definitely a coathook. After the medical information that describes the trial itself is removed, it can be merged into Healthcare in Germany#Regulation and/or acupuncture. It is notable to discuss the outcome of the trials at the Healthcare in Germany article but there is no reason to have duplicate information in a separate article. There is not a decent paragraph about the outcome of the trials in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation. Once the coathook information is removed there may only be left a small paragraph. The result in the end will likely be a merge. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be merged. I propose this:
  1. Settle this deletion discussion.
  2. If it is kept, purge content inappropriate for inclusion into Wikipedia.
  3. If it is kept, then after content is purged, consider the merge.
I feel that content needs to be pulled. I am not sure what the article will look like after that, and I see no reason to try to imagine this before the deletion discussion is settled. The merge would be determined by how much content is here; if what is left would be
WP:UNDUE to put anywhere else then it should stay here. If the article is kept then I will be around to clean the mess, and I would also talk by phone or Skype with anyone who wishes to talk to make the cleanup more expedient. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The problems can be fixed but it will be difficult to purge content inappropriate for the article when there are very determined editors who want to keep the current article as is with all the coathook material. We agree that the possible merge would be determined by how much content is left after the text is summarised. QuackGuru (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is going to be determining which sources can be used for what. As it is right now, the strategy of QG and Alexbrn seems to be to impeach as many sources as possible in order to keep the article a stub... In the discussion at
WP:MEDDATE clearly doesn't apply). --Mallexikon (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not a medical article about the acupuncture trials. You created an unintentional
WP:COATHOOK
. Mallexikon believes this is a medical article about acupuncture information.
There is not a decent paragraph in Healthcare in Germany#Regulation, Regulation of acupuncture#Germany or Acupuncture. The content can be merged into the other articles.
See
merged back into the main article." QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note. The article is littered with dated sources, original research, text that the failed verification, and unimportant low level details. This is a big mess. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The editor who started the article in 2011 said today: What concerns? And why debate them here? The editor continues to think there are no concerns with the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I merely asked you what concerns you were talking about, and why you start debating them at the RS noticeboard... --Mallexikon (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the
WP:WEIGHT violation, among other violations. Do you think there is any coatrack information or excessive details in the article? If yes, what specific information do you think should be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC but it was largely ignored. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic covered by significant sources. Nominator DOESNTLIKEIT. The whole tactic of "let's remove the content and sources and then claim the article doesn't have enough content and sources" was pulled on Monsanto-related articles recently by the usual suspects. It's petty, transparent, and intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With regard to comments by
    expectancy effect. II | (t - c) 07:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Actually, I think it was in the nuked stated when I AfD'd it - but I'm now confused as I see only 3 edits for the 19th Nov, and none are at 23:35. However the assumption of bad faith from editors who should know better is disappointing.
COI 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It was nuked on 20-Nov at 6:19 [44], then nominated for deletion at 6:43 [45]. I reverted the nukeandpave at 7:00 [46]. QuackGuru nuked the article again at 7:06 [47]. When I reverted again [48], Alexbrn reverted once more and politely informed me that edit warring may lead to a block [49]. When I complained at AN/I about the nuking of sourced material, Alexbrn's response was "I think you mean "of poorly-sourced material" - good stuff eh? We're here to improve Wikipedia, after all ..." [50]. Anyway, judging from the lack of feedback at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC I can only conclude that his behavior is deemed acceptable. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not acceptable at all, and if this was brought to arbcom, they would call it disruptive and tendentious. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive? You will have noticed the text displayed above the edit box you used to enter your text: "commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". However, since you raise this .... I appreciate you have some expertise on Wikipedia's sanctions, having been on the receiving end yourself for your personalized attacks on other editors (which still appears to be unfortunately an issue) - but it would be a foolish person indeed who would predict how Arbcom would react to any given situation. This article was full of poorly-sourced and undue medical and quasi-medical content that fell afoul of WP's policies and guidelines and my removal of it improved Wikipedia. We're going to get back to that improved state, but it's just we're now going the "long way round" by going through AfD: such are the ways of consensus.
COI 10:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, disruptive, as in, there is a rough consensus that you have disrupted yet another article topic by engaging in the same duplicitous tactics as previously noted in the Monsanto-related topic area. This is not a coincidence, and if arbcom was able to see the entire pattern of behavior by you and the usual suspects, they would agree with me. You aren't fooling anyone. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh - it's a devastating case, falling short only in not being backed by facts. AFAIR I have never nominated any Monsanto article for deletion nor stubbed any. Clue:
COI 10:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe not, but it isn't hard to find a tendentious edit at March Against Monsanto, like this one. I have seen nothing but this type of editing from you, and am very concerned by this. Though you may not have nominated the article for deletion, you voted for it, saying "Delete and merge core content to Genetically modified food controversies. While the topic is notable enough for a section in a larger topic, the lack (?)of multiple high-quality sourcing does not justify a standalone article, and in fact risks erecting a coatrack for pro- and contra- POVs ... which is what we have seen in the edit history here." Alexbrn 6 August 2013 petrarchan47tc 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The extensive discussion of the methodology of the trials makes this an article subject to MEDRS. Then that the trials have been discredited would need inclusion etc. The level of notability warrants only some mention in the Healthcare in Germany article as separate edit not a merge. This article would deteriorate into a discussion of methodology for scientific medical studies. If someone can point to substantial discussion of the impact of these trials in multiple quality RS my opinion might changed, but then the article would need a great deal of editing, which IMO would lead to it being a subject better included in Healthcare in Germany. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"MEDRS" is a content guideline; nothing is "subject" to it. Please stop elevating guidelines to policies. If you would like to make it a policy, then follow the procedure. The level of notability is such that the German article calls it "the world's largest prospective, randomized study on the efficacy of acupuncture". It has also been called the most influential and controversial study of its kind. The number of sources on this topic is numerous. It's bizarre to see editors questioning this over and over again. Finally, the quality of a notable article does not lend any weight towards deletion, and is an argument to avoid. The bad arguments in favor of deletion here seem to disappear into nothing when you take a closer look. It's just IDONTLIKEIT covered in treacle. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented convincing arguments supported by more in depth study of the article. I am changing my vote to Keep. There is adequate support for notability. In response: there is wide consensus on MEDRS, my apologies for phrasing that implied it was a policy. When consensus supports following a guideline in an article it is appropriate to follow it for that article. As suggested I will look into having MEDRS become a policy. You are correct a notable article that needs improvement should be improved not AfD'd. This article needs substantial editing but that is a topic for its talk page. Thank you for your input (not so much for your tone). - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 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. The rationales given by the deletion supporters here seem pretty strong. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis

Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis (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)

Propaganda for pseudoscience. Even the article admits there is no evidence for the theory. It is beyond my ability to rewrite, there is possibly enough notability for a short article, but it would be necessary to start over, presenting it properly in terms of our pseudoscience policies., and in any case the unacceptable speculation should be removed from the history. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The hypothesis of the link between XO and atheroschlerosis is notable - see Xanthine oxidase in homogenized cow's milk and Oster's hypothesis: a review. The theory doesn't seem to have panned out but this is the normal scientific method, not pseudoscience. If the article needs work then this is a matter of normal editing. Deletion would be disruptive to this, removing the edit history and contents in an indiscriminate way. If the nominator feels himself unable to write upon the topic, he should please not presume to dismiss it. Note that
    alternative to deletion is a redirect to that section. How hard is that? Warden (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is a mess, and it's hard to see how to rescue it. The references are of generally low-quality or are used in a manner that represents
    synthesis; the reference formatting is wrong as well. A huge effort would be needed to extract the small amount of encyclopedic content from the rest, and refactor to represent scientific consensus. -- Scray (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also note overlapping content in United States raw milk debate#Homogenization. -- Scray (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the long list of references, this article does not appear to pass our requirement for a medical article. It appears to be a mass of speculation, synthesis, and references to non-reliable sources. Key observation: the section "Diseases linked to XO" is completely unsourced. Also: the source cited above by Colonel Warden concludes "Compared with present knowledge, this theory gives little evidence only." (translated from German) This is not something we should have an article on. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Division of Nutrition, Bureau of Foods, US Food and Drug Administration commissioned the Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to review the XO theory based on available evidence, in the year 1975. The comprehensive report, number 223-75-2090, views the XO theory as a significant topic worthy of further investigation considering the possible, broad significance of biologically available XO in homogenized, cow’s milk on the health of the US population.

Since then, despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven. In fact, quite to the contrary, diverse evidence in support of it has coalesced even without the participation of the pioneers who introduced it. A list of desired research directions is included in the Federation report. From among the suggested, 19 directions a good number have been pursued and they largely support the XO theory. The report states:

“Further research should include: “Investigation of the possible absorption of large molecular weight proteins such as xanthine oxidase from the gastrointestinal tract during the life of the animal (confirmed - Zikakis, 1990) and whether or not this process resembles that of the neonate;

“In human subjects, confirmation of the existence of immune-specific circulating antibodies to ingested bovine milk xanthine oxidase. (IgM antibodies to bovine XO have been confirmed by no less than three independent research groups - see references 72-77 in the article). If confirmation proves successful, investigation should be extended to find possible epidemiologic correlates for atherosclerosis (extensive epidemiological evidence linking bovine XO to atherosclerosis exists in the literature).

“Measurement of xanthine oxidase in normal and atherosclerotic human arterial intimal and subintimal layers and in normal and ischemic myocardium (determined, Atherosclerosis, 2003), with differentiation between exogenous and endogenous XO (not determined).

“Using a source-specific method of identification, establishment of or ruling out the presence of ectopically deposited bovine milk xanthine oxidase in arterial and myocardial tissues of human milk consumers (done, Oster, et al, 1973).

“Confirmation of reports of changes in plasmalogen (phosphatidylethanolamine) content of atherosclerotic arteries and ischemic myocardium (such changes have been demonstrated not only in arteries and heart muscle but also in human erythrocytes, the myelin sheathes of nerves and in brain - MS and Alzheimer’s).

“Establishment of the occurrence and biologic significance of phospholipase A and vinyl etherase in normal and diseased human cardiovascular tissues. (high lipoprotein PLA2 activity has been shown to imply a worse CV prognosis, Rossi, et al, 2012).

“Confirmation that plasmals are found in vivo in normal human cardiovascular tissues, using a reliable method of detection. (today, the presence of plasmals, phosphotidylethanolamine, in cardiovascular tissues is a textbook understanding with numerous detection methods in existence).

“Better understandings of the biosynthesis and degradation of plasmalogens (phosphatidylethanolamine, PE) and proof of xanthine oxidase interaction with plasmalogens, particularly, a demonstration that xanthine oxidase catalyzes the oxidation of plasmals in vivo. (XO oxidation of plasma substrate is now a well understood reaction. Of late, even a correlation between a PE decrease and a XO increase in autism has been noted, Chauhan 2006).

Detractors in the present talk page do not base criticism on research that might disprove the XO theory. They seem to be in a rush to do away with it based on stylistic, formatting and editing considerations, raising questions over their objectivity and/or their lack of awareness of the topic’s significance. XO is an established generator of ROS and at the center of inflammation pathology, the prime link between most chronic and life-threatening diseases as well as the key to their remedy.

As the article creator, I believe time should be granted to edit the article to everyone’s satisfaction, consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.Ambassador III (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Ambassador III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

About your comment that "despite spurious, internet claims, the theory has never been disproven": In the first place, the reports which have failed to find evidence for this supposed link are not "internet claims"; they are peer-reviewed published articles.[51] More importantly, it is not Wikipedia's policy to publish an article about every medical theory that "has not been disproven"; given the difficulty of proving a negative, that would leave the door open to almost anything. Rather, Wikipedia's medical articles have to meet the standard that "the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." This article fails that standard. Editing or rewriting will not change that. About your request for "time", it appears that you have been working on this article, at AfC and in articlespace, since January 2012 - almost two years. That's quite a bit of time already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay going through the lead.

  1. Ref 1 [52] is a primary source and does not support the text in question
  1. Ref 2 [53] does not mention the ingestion of homogenized milk. It thus does not appear to address the subject of the article.
  1. Red 3 [54] is primary research and the full paper does not mention homogenized milk or atherosclerosis
  1. Red 4 is a popular press book [55] which appears to be pushing a fringe position
  2. Ref 5 [56] is a letter from 1977. No a reliable source. And there are reliable sources that find the folic acid does not affect CVD risk (may decrease stock) [57]

Delete per above.

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Three reviews from 1983 does not an article make [58]. What we have is more or less
talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 28 November 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Things I Hate About Me

Ten Things I Hate About Me (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)

fails WP:NBOOK. the only award won is not a major one "Kathleen Mitchell Award for Excellence in Young Adult Writing 2008". LibStar (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it were just the award then the notability might be shaky since I'm not certain how big this award really is. Most awards aren't, regardless of how long they've been running. At most they can contribute towards notability but not give absolute notability. Luckily I was able to dig up some reviews for the book from various places such as some peer reviewed journals. Altogether I think that there's just enough to merit a keep. I'm actually a little surprised at how hard it was to find some of these sources given how much coverage the author herself has received.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tokyogirl79. Perhaps not the author's most notable work, but notable enough. For the record, I found another brief review at
    Denver Post, and a December 31, 2009 New York Post article that appears to make a connection between this book and a TV series called "What I Hate About Me". --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benitec Biopharma

Benitec Biopharma (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)

They are probably notable, but I can not figure out how to rewrite it to remove the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • An edit is already being in the pipeline and so a rewrite can incorporated if guidance is given. For example, can an example sentence of what is not acceptable be provided? Can another company Wikipedia page be suggested to demonstrate the difference?
Just as background, when originally composing/submitting the article, other company Wikipedia pages were reviewed in order to understand what could and could not be said, and further advice was sought from the Wikipedia community. All content is referenced to as many independent sources as possible. The submission was approved. The content has not been altered since. Snrichards (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least stubify. Much of the information is just completely unnecessary including the speaking tour of the CEO, a list of unexplained patents and details about a bunch of obviously, individually non-notable programs. I'm inclined to agree that the company itself might pass
    WP:CORPDEPTH but we'd need a machete to hack through the untended backyard that is promo-spam here. The "submission" was "approved" by a single editor, not the broader community. I'm not sure he was necessarily wrong to pass it through AFC but that doesn't mean its existence here cannot be challenged thereafter. Stalwart111 07:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue is not how the article is written, but whether the company is notable. My impression is that it does not meet
    WP:CORP. I found a few mentions in minor publications [60] [61], but nothing significant. Otherwise just the usual information about the stock price (it is publicly traded, which often gives notability, but it's a penny stock and draws no significant coverage in financial circles). --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And those things make this company
notable how? Stalwart111 11:20, 28 November 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. LFaraone 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rain dance (music genre)

Rain dance (music genre) (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)

Originally PROD'd with reason "Unverified, no suggestion here or on the internetz that this is a notable genre." PROD was removed by the author without explanation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NOTE. It is a difficult term to search for, but nothing turns up that support the contention that this is a significant genre.--SabreBD (talk) 20:00, 27 November 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. LFaraone 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot

Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot (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)

Everything is wrong with this article, starting with the name. The article is not about "Cultural depictions of T.S. Eliot". It's about constructing an indiscriminate collection of every time that some snippet of dialogue or book or movie title or lyric was or sounds like or reminds some editor or another of Eliot, or something Eliot wrote, or something that sounds similar to something that Eliot wrote. Trivia magnet loaded with

original research. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Lesser artists like Nabokov, Waugh, Lessing, Achebe, William Burroughs, Anthony Burgess, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison? No-talent plagiarists the lot of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.1

1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.1 (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)

WP:COPYRIGHT
? I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 BP Super Visco British F3 Championship Rd.11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984 Thundersports Rd.7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988 Lucas British F3 Championship Rd.15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988 Lucas British F3 Championship Rd.17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988 Lucas British F3 Championship Rd.18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977 Vandervell British F3 Championship Rd.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Falcadore (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
    NotifyOnline 02:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk to me 02:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_20&oldid=1142630887"