Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 9

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme Arana

Guilherme Arana (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 that the article Fails both

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - already explained above. MYS77 ^✉ 23:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep page - Player won all major titles in the U20 category last year in Brazil, he was part of the main squad for the biggest tournaments at the moment - Campeonato Paulista and Copa Libertadores. He was loaned to a club that plays in the top league as well, expected to debut as soon as the next game or the other one. This user - seems to me a Brazilian supporter of one of those south clubs - just wants to create a messy dispute over the article. It's not as it was created just for the purpose of being the one who created it or anything else. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notablity, and applies only to footballers who have played actual matches. Simply being part of a squad or named to substitutes bench is insufficient for this guideline to apply. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That they never played in a fully-professional league is a good reason not to have an article. AlbinoFerret

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) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darconville's Cat

Darconville's Cat (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 novel; still an unsourced, unreferenced stub after over four years. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - there are sources, including an NYT review and a Christian Science Monitor article, and it's apparently the author's best-known work. I have a free moment, so I'll actually take a shot at working on this and see what happens. FYI, I generally don't like seeing articles get "saved" at AfD, especially after several years of no work; I must be getting soft in the head. MSJapan (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MSJapan seems to be right, there's enough coverage to meet WP:NBOOK comfortably. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  talk 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I actually cannot access either JSTOR or the full-text NY Review of Books (it's a paywall). Do we have some sort of resource list somewhere so I can find an editor who does have access to one or both of them through the WP subs? MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MSJapan: have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange? Also for the past few years a couple of the major paywall services have offered a number of free licenses for Wikipedians. I think they put out the requests for applications in June/July time frame. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the CS Monitor review and NY Review of books easily satisfy
  significant coverage in multiple sources and the half dozen or more passing mentions as the educated doorstop are just frosting (but even so they alone are more than what generally passes to establish notability). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as
  WP:GNG per recent improvements. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Mall

Lloyd Mall (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 shopping mall. Tinton5 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 21:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches here, here and here and searches at Highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing significant or notable. Maybe a redirect to List_of_shopping_malls_in_Canada#Lloydminster also? SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable found in searches. AlbinoFerret
• Delete - I can't find anything - Fails GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 16 May 2015 (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.

PC-1 (computer)

PC-1 (computer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails

• Delete - No evidence of notability, only source is a source providing very little information at all. --
  talk) 22:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is an historically important early Japanese computer and how can the article "promote" research work done over half a century ago? Better to search for sources using "parametron computer" which produces significant coverage in books like this one.

• Comment—The parametron is a type of circuit. There were several computers built using it and the book you found could definitely contribute to that article. The PC-1 (as best I can tell) was just one of many of this kind of computer and as such it may not be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The source provided by the original editor has a pages long section detailing the architecture and development of the PC-1. Takahasi Hidetosi is a notable scientist. We just don't cover Japanese science well. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—There are several references to this particular model in The First Computers: History and Architectures and gbooks seems to think there's something Cerruzi's A History of Modern Computing (but no preview is available). There's a page at the IPSJ Computer Museum. Given all this, I don't think establishing notability will be an issue. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The (
  WP:Notability be of any relevance? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the previous keep arguments. ···
  Join WP Japan! 20:51, 14 May 2015 (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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1802 Zhang Heng

1802 Zhang Heng (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 couldn't establish that this meets

• Redirect at minimum. The mention in
  ISBN 3-540-00238-3." as source. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kheider, you can disagree with my nomination, but you cannot edit it to make it say something different. I was really shocked to see that anyone would do that, and have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    NASTRO does not allow deletion of bot created main-belt asteroid stubs. It is either Keep or Re-direct. Your nomination should not suggest deleting the article. -- Kheider (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment My nomination states my opinion;you can then disagree in your vote; but you cannot edit my nomination to something very different because you think I should think that. Please do not do it again. Your opinion in the response to nomination section is valued, but you cannot edit my words so that anyone reading would think they were still mine. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You have read NASTRO, correct? Especially the part about re-directing and not deleting asteroid articles? I would give you more respect if I thought you were honoring and had read NASTRO. I certainty hope your goal is not to abuse NASTRO for your own pet project(s). -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no interest in your respect, nor your bad faith. Just please do not re-write my comments as if they came from me; that is very wrong. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree you have no interest in my respect. -- Kheider (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Part of a 42-asteroid lightcurve study [5]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (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 redirect to William Shatner#Family. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nerine Kidd

Nerine Kidd (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)

Many of the subject's career details are not covered contemporaneously, but are sourced from obituaries. Much of the article content is trivial: a vague statement of generosity towards her family with her earnings, her early life is notably not about her, and even her career info is scant and taken mostly from two or three sources, one of which is William Shatner's own biography (written after her death, and also not an independent source). Easily 80% of the article is about her marriage to Shatner, alcoholism, and death. Those three items are substantially covered in William Shatner's article already. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to William Shatner#Family. Not notable as an actress or model. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - She was best known as William Shatner's wife, nothing particuarly notable about her career-wise. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Camacaro

Armando Camacaro (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 bullpen catcher who fails GNG (and, FWIW, also fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and prior AfD. Wizardman 01:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2015 (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) 14:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utica greens

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

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

This is a procedural nomination of a "redirect" that was listed at RFD. Since this is actually an article, I think it would be better to take it here. The nominator,

• I had added the comment below to the RfD prior to the procedural close. There has been an edit war over whether the article should be redirected or not, and it ended up there when it should have ended up here. My !vote is the same, though. Ivanvector (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article - I think there's enough here for an article, but the current one needs much work. I don't know what notability guideline to refer to for local cuisine, so I'm judging GNG by the diversity of search results, and the fact that Rachael Ray has published her own recipe for this dish. As a side note, this should probably be at AfD since an article was created. Ivanvector (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   19:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My quick take is that it's probably notable enough, like many regional dishes. Neither of the nominator's redirect suggestions are good, however, since the dish isn't mentioned on either of those pages. And if it's deemed non-notable, it probably shouldn't be anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely passes
  WP:GNG. I added three sources in a new Further reading section—a Chicago Tribune article, a Smithsonian magazine article, and a Gastronomica article, the last being a scholarly publication. Utica greens is the subject of each of them. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep (note to self: make it for dinner) search turned up lots of hits, recipes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a very well-known, and unique, dish served on tables across Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that the sources provided by Hiroloveswords and others have shown notability. The article has been improved too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Boucher

Paul H. Boucher (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)

Minor appointed official. The only significant material is some negative material about minor crimes. Wee he a notable elected official it might be relevant--it is not in this case. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN and the article is a coatrack for listing petty crimes he committed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Received significant coverage in the Boston Globe articles Manager Named In Saugus and Saugus Manager Vote Angers Some Residents, the Chicago Tribune articles Maywood Manager Charged with Theft, Top Official Suspended by Maywood Bd. , Manager Fired in Maywood After Probe, and Former Village Manager of Maywood Sent to Jail, and the Courier Express articles Boucher's Action Helps Cut Payroll and Boucher To Leave City Post. Was also a party in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Illinois [6] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with the
  WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, I'm a little puzzled by what you mean by "false" biographical sketch, or why a reference being in the public domain is significant. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep O.K. the false bio stuff is just an element of the Maywood Mgr. section. Of the few RS available online they were a major portion of the content.
  WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If so, what is notable is the case, not the person. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a quick search in newspapers.com and quite a few newspaper articles in the late 1960s to early 1970s. His crimes apparently drew a lot of interest. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2015 (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 Deleted G7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas E. Duff

Thomas E. Duff (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)

city manager of a number of small cities. No evidence for notability. city manager is not one of those positions that necessarily implies notability. The population of the cities was in each case under 35,000, so even had he been an elected official such as mayor, that wouldn't imply notability either. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Received significant coverage in James D. Doherty's Andover As I Remember It, Randy W. Baumgardner's 10th Mountain Division, the Boston Globe articles Saugus has a great tradition... can he manage to end it? and Andover Thrives on Good Community Relations, and a sizable obituary in The Stowe Reporter. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SOLDIER as a PfC. That "Andover As I Remember It" book source does not seem to have been published by a reputable company and is likely self-published. Routine local obituaries do not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Still received significant coverage in 10th Mountain Division, which was published by a reputable company (Turner Publishing Company), and the Boston Globe. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Err, Hiro, did you read that 10th Mountain Division bit? That's not "significant coverage," that's a CV ... and over half of it is about the collective service of a group among whom he was numbered, not about him specifically. As far as the Globe citations go, if there were a thousand of them, they're still routine coverage, they're not substantial, they run afoul of GEOSCOPE, and they represent only a single source. I see that you're unusually invested in creating articles for Saugus town managers (??), but. Ravenswing 19:52, 12 May 2015 (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. Davewild (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Operations Research Society

German Operations Research Society (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 independent sources, no indication of any notability. Doesn't meet

• Keep I've linked it to the German article here (
  YO 😜 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This suffers from the usual problems of articles on academic societies — they don't often write about themselves, when they do so the publications are often in society newsletters, by society presidents, or otherwise not sufficiently independent, and in any case these publications are difficult to locate among the much higher number of publications that mention the society only trivially as the publisher of something else. Nevertheless, I found and added two independent sources to the article, one from the Wiley library and one sourcing its membership as the representative of Germany in IFORS. I think as the main representative body for its nation in a major academic discipline (the subject studied by entire university departments) I think it is sufficiently notable. The article is badly sourced, but that can be solved by trimming it back to only the material that can be properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David's source finds and the independent sources in
  WP:NGO. --Mark viking (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2015 (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.

Maxim Stoyalov

Maxim Stoyalov (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 evidence of notability, does not meet

• IMDB lists two episodic roles in es:Hay alguien ahí (some Spanish TV series, perhaps series is notable but it's definitely not a significant role) and an unknown role in ru:Зима мертвецов: Метелица (Russian horror film, only actor not to be credit with a particular role and does not appear on the film's website, thus definitely not a significant role either)
• Kinopoisk lists nine roles: a main actor of a non-existent film, ru:Физрук (72nd in the cast as a "business partner", not a significant role), The Guide (where his role is a "passer-by"), Russian TV series "Лютый" (no article in Russian Wikipedia, not a significant role anyway as he is just a "policeman"), ru:Чужой район (51st in the cast without a role), uk:Чемпіони з підворіття (18th out of 19 in the cast without a role), Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan's Hope (no other source list him in the cast, looks like a hoax), Taras Bulba (55th in the cast as "a cossack", not a significant role) and the abovementioned es:Hay alguien ahí (listed 75th in the cast) plus Leviathan with a clear indication that he is not mentioned as a part of the cast. Thus no significant roles either
• This link suggests he was starring in Diary of the Dead, but again no other source (e.g. NY Times) lists him in the cast, again looks like a hoax
• Ridus article about Russian film «Комбинат «Надежда», however, it lists Maxim Stoyanov, not Maxim Stoyalov, thus it's just irrelevant
• CinemaHall representative in Melitopol — well, he is a representative of an NGO in Melitopol, a city with 150,000 inhabitants, which definitely is not notable.

To sum up, we have a mix of episodic roles that clearly are not significant and a mix of possible hoaxes where Stoyalov appears in one database but is not listed in any other source. None of the roles match

Not cheating ... minor role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NOT
  YO 😜 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Clearly Stoyalov Stoyanov just different people, just a little information about Stoyalove, Zone 1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.223 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do these pictures prove? — NickK (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What plays in the film, and in one, and is ready to raise the Ukrainian spirit and Ukrainian cinema ipnews.

• Delete Speedy delete was declined because there was no prior AfD but that was just sloppy. The previous AfD was given on the talk page which should have been checked. Nothing has changed since then - completely non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting here because this was mentioned on my talk page: The previous AfD,
  WP:CSD#G4 because there was no prior AfD consensus to delete. I myself have no opinion on this article.  Sandstein  22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That explains it - so I retract the word sloppy. The AfD existed but did not have a chance to form consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing ISBN 1565-9062 SBN 978-3-942855-01-3. Actor, director, screenwriter, not an authoritative source, but I will throw off 1 2 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.16 (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor, director, screenwriter + publishing, reference:

[www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200911/25/01.php, si-sf.ru/den_m_s/ 1] [www.magicpc.spb.ru/journal/200912/23/01.php 2] [www.novijdom.com/chul22-08.shtml 3] on-magazine.at.ua/index/9_2009g/0-17 4 [www.technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/208/1406 5] 6[ aesthetoscope.livejournal.com/18559.html 7], 8. 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Gênero: Terror Direção: George A. Romero Roteiro: George A. Romero Elenco: Alan Van Sprang, Alexandria DeFabiis, Amy Ciupak Lalonde, Anthony Cancelliere, Ara Katz, Boyd Banks, Daniel Kash, Donna Croce, George Buza, Gregory Nicotero, Guillermo del Toro, Jack Birman, James Binkley, Jamie Bloch, Janet Lo, Joe Dinicol, Joshua Close, Kyle Glencross, Laura de Carteret, Laura DeCarteret, Martin Roach, Matt Birman, Maxim Stoyalov, Megan Park, Nick Alachiotis, Quentin Tarantino, R.D. Reid, Ron Payne, Scott Gibson, Shelley Cook, Simon Pegg, Stephen King, Tatiana Maslany, Tino Monte, Todd Schroeder, Trish Adams, 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2829 30 3132 h[ttps://vimeo.com/67805063 33] http://new-rutor.org/torrent/413877/povodyr_povodir_the-guide-2014-satrip/ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.88.58 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note to closer, this is the only contribution by 188.163.88.58. Also, many of the links are to non-RS. LaMona (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not only they are to non-RS, but especially none of these links shows notability per

  WP:NACTOR — NickK (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Davis

Dre Davis (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)

Page that has been deleted before-as Dre davis anyway unotable actress. Wgolf (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - Simply not notable at this time aside from probably best known for Project Runway with multiple searches finding nothing aside from links at News (nothing significant). I would've suggested moving the article but there's no target.SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable actress, fails
  WP:BIO. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Prod that was contested-originally I restored the prod thinking it was a blp prod but in fact it was a normal one. No notability mentioned as well as only refs are els' Wgolf (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Smells like an autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep + wikify to remove promotional tone. Sajjad Ullah meets
  Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly one of the four provincial governments of Pakistan as verified by official government source. [[7]]. Cowlibob (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Member of provincial legislative assembly. which is presumed notable in any country. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up as needed. Subject passes
  WP:POLITICIAN a former provincial lawmaker. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment via
  WP:PAK Needs a rewrite and secondary sources. Due to the current state of article, I'm bent towards delete with the possibility of recreation through AFC as the lack of inline references for the content are creating BLP issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As a member of a Provincial assembly passes
  WP:POLITICIAN which is verified by reliable sources. Article needs editing not deleting. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (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.

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group (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)

per

• Dear Padenton. With regard to finding aditional sources that both have a larger scope than a city/county, please find [[ http://traubman.igc.org/vidnigeriaresponse.htm ]] which states: "I hope these DVDs will help us move toward improving peace and understanding here in Nigeria. We are planning to use them as part of our Train-the-Trainer workshop next week and then provide copies to each of our American Corners for Nigerians across the nation." Suzanne Miller, Public Affairs Officer, Embassy of the United States, Abuja, NIGERIA. [[9]] Maybe you would like to reach out to the Embassy of the United States to validate this statement independently. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG for details). And FYI, [[blahblahblah]] creates links to articles on wikipedia, you want to use [] for links to websites outside wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   19:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

While I am trying to assume that everyone here is operating in good faith User:BenjaminGittins has been editing since 2006, and has been editing this rarely-edited page regularly since he founded the page in March 2013, comfortably using the talk page, and even removing tags from the page. He can hardly be regarded as a novice editor. He has been joined on this otherwise rarely-edited page by SPAs in the past, and a new SPA began to edit the page yesterday. I am not judging the page by the behavior of the editors, there may indeed be sources, but given that this is a page with grand claims and little sourcing - to date - I cannot help but think that it all feels a tad disingenuous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• delete what appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. The article begins with a chat club on Middle East politics begun in a San Mateo living room. There are two ~RS here, a local (San Mateo) paper ran a story about the group when it began in 1992 (archived on this organization's website, not by the paper), and a local, Jewish paper story on its 20th anniversary.[10]. That's a reported story, albeit local, and not much of an indication of notability. But those two stories are pretty much all we have. The rest of the article is lengthy, with many sections, about efforts to use dialogue to produce peace in the Niddle East and elsewhere. It is sometimes asserted that such were efforts were "encouraged" by the San Mateo group, but NO RS SOURCES are brought. User:BenjaminGittins started the article in March 2013, and has monitored it over the years, removing tags (I just put 2 of the tags he removed back up, as they still apply in my opinion,) he added material, links and sources (often to material generated by the group itself; other times with no apparatn connection to "living room dialoge" at all ) what he and no one else ever added are sources to support the article's grandiose assertions that a movement that began in a San Mateo living room has had international impact. Other editors User Dan-el )(aSPA), IP 97.101.228.14 (ASPA), and User:LTraubman added material to this page, then left Wikipedia. As the last man standing , I hope that User:BenjaminGittins can come and source the claims on the page. It is very difficult to hunt for sources to an alleged movement this vague, with no unique words or phrases in the title . Otherwise, I can't see that these Bay Area living room dialogues are noteworthy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Pishcal. You have stated ``this page appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. I am a little confused by this statement. To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. As an independent observer, having considered the activities achieved by this group, I felt that results achieved were significant. I do not feel that *where an article* is hosted is relevant, if that article was originally published by a different organisation. The page as it is currently visible on wikipedia does not include all third party publications related to this group. Please see [[11]] for a more detail list for Video Newscasts, Audio Newscasts and news reports. I removed those references in response to the tags originally placed on the page. Please check that older revision of the page, and please let me know if that addresses the substance of your concern regarding sources... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)

• comment I had looked carefully through sources before iVoting (above,) and misled by the claims on the page into believing that this might possibly be more than a local club of like-minded individuals who like to talk politics - despite the lack of evidence for that in the sources given. I only just now went to this organization's website, linked from the info box [12]. I am ticked, I feel misused, so I returned to this topic to laud User:Padenton for spotting this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion of what is no more notable than any other book club, bible study group, gourmet cooking group, investment club that meets every week or month in someone's living room. Such groups often continue for decades, raise substantial funds for worthy causes, provide speakers at local events. I now think the best solution is to SPEEDY delete. And perhaps sanction User:BenjaminGittins for removing tags from the page that might have tipped editors off sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear E.M.Gregory: With regard to removing the tags from the page., I would kindly bring your attention to the Talk:Jewish-Palestinian_Living_Room_Dialogue_Group page. On that page you can see that I made announcements that I had adjusted the content of the page in response to the tags. You can also see that I waited months before removing the tags. Furthermore someone called Dan had asked if there were any further concerns. After several months had passed, and no additional concerns were raised, i removed the tags and I recorded publicly in the talk page that this is what I had done. I believe I acted in good faith in regard to the substance of the changes requested. Further, the tags related solely to improving the quality of layout and copy-editing. Those tags did not raise any concern about the legitimacy of the page. If I have made a mistake with regard to some Wikipedia policy that I am not aware of, I apologise. In addition, if I have made a mistake with regard to wikipedia best practices, can you point me to the right location where I can read up on what is considered best practices in this regard. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • Dear E.M.Gregory: I am a little confused by your statement that this is: "flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion". To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. So this is not self-promotion. Nor is it flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatent self-promotion. I politely request you detract your false assertion against me. Benjamin Gittins (talk)

User:BenjaminGittins, I now see that you posted on the talk page. Where no one responded. Indeed, what I see it a problem that sometimes occurs on WP, to wit, a page is created filled with assertions and material utterly unsupported by sources (in this case, none of the sources support the claims that this group has primacy among such groups, let alone the sort of global influence that the page asserts. When few or no editors examine such a page, it can stay up for years. Until some alert editor notices it. Such pages are usually started and maintained by a founder, fan, member, or supporter of the group in quesiton. If that does not describe you, I apologize for making such an assumption. All of which still leaves us with an embarrassingly poor page filled with assertions unsupported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever
  WP:LOCALFAME it may have - and it doesn't seem to have a lot of that, either - it doesn't have the necessary coverage in proper sources to demonstrate notability. I'd remove the spam links, but as this article will necessarily be deleted, no point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hi. I see the issues being raised here. I have only just become aware of the complaints as of today. I will require some time to consider the large number of issues raised. I will require reasonable time as I wish to carefully address each issue raised. I also have intense work commitments that must also be attended to. I created and have maintained this page in good faith. This page has been online for approximately 2 years in service to the community. I feel adequate time should be provided to discuss and address the issues in a well-considered manner. Thank you.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I would like to also request that time be given to repair the legitimate concerns raised about this page. While I do not participate in the group, I have known the people who coordinate it for over 30 years and have therefore, followed the activities of the project. I am unsure why the many sources that could have been cited were not. Over the years since the project began in the early 90's it has been written up in a number of publications, The Christian Science Monitor <http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p11s01-lihc.html> and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California<http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7042/hundreds-of-jews-palestinians-get-taste-of-unity-here/> <http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/17130/making-peace-in-the-living-room/> to name just a very few. Members of the group have been interviewed on NPR's Weekend America <http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/index_20041113.html#8>, The Voice of America <http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2006-06-20-voa40/317928.html>CNN, NBC, and ABC. They have been invited to speak at numerous schools, and forums and have participated in University programs. They work with people in internationally and are active in creating opportunities for discussion for children's groups. They have designed curricula and managed large workshops all designed to emphasize on the importance of dialogue in conflict situations. This is definitely not a book club, bible study group or cooking group. I would be pleased to work on the article to make the requested improvements, but can't get to it until this weekend. Your patience would be appreciated. Unicorn46 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unicorn46 is a brand-new, SPA, editing only on this AFD. The page itself, though infrequently edited, has been edited by otern single-purpose accounts over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• not exactly the 2002 Christian Science Monitor article is about "Arab-Jewish Dialogue, a grass-roots movement that began in the 1980s and that has picked up new momentum in the United States since the Palestinian intifada began anew in 2000" and it says "The national hub for these groups is in the Bay Area of northern California, where organizers Len and Libby Traubman are in the middle of their 10th year of Palestinian-Israeli dialogue" confirming that the Taubmans of San Mateo have been hosting such a group, but the Monitor does not describe the San Mateo living room as the hub or origin.

The Voice of America article confirms that the Taubman living room group has longevity. And that other such groups now exist. Not that the other groups exist because the Taubmans started their

Here's a recent New York Times article about a cooking club that has been meeting continuously for 124 years.[13] It's nice to have your living room chat group written up in the newspaper. It does not make you notable.

An broader article about Israeli-Palestinian grassroots dialogue groups might work.

This article is about a specific group in a specific living room, but most of the copy is about dialogue with no indication of a relationship to the Taubman living room group. The infobox is about this small, local group, which the lede asserts has "grown to global influence". I just don't see evidence this living room club has global significance. Despite the fact that it was the subject of a handful of color stories during the

second intifadaE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The few extra days to improve this article are appreciated. I am open to suggestions as I work to address the issues that have been raised. Unicorn46 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there should not be duplicates in the "references" and "external Links" sections. I will clean that up as soon as I have finished with inserting the needed citations. Thank you for your patience with this " brand-new, SPA," I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I still appreciate your patience. Unicorn46 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Oo7565.. Thank you for being involved in the acceptance process for the submission of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group page on Wikipedia on 7 April 2013. There is currently some discussion about deleting this page. I was wondering if you might be able to provide some constructive information on why this page was originally considered suitable for acceptance on Wikipedia. I was also wondering if you could also contribute some suggestions on how the current contents might be improved, so as to avoid this page being deleted. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory Thanks for you feedback above (sorry for replying down here, I'm trying to add comments below the notice above. I accept your apology. I'm personally embarrassed that this page is not as good as it needs to be. I hear your concern about the references, and I will need to see what can be done about that. It is correct, that I have edited several pages before. Several of my changes in the past have been within the capacity of small changes here and there. This is the first time i've created a page on Wikipedia from scratch. I acknowledge i've had difficulties in wrapping my head around the editorial style and requirements. I would like the opportunity to try and improve it over time, to incrementally bring it inline with WP requirement. Ultimately it may prove that it is not possible, but at least I would like to try to do that. As with regard to timing, I have been working 7 days a week all this year, which translates into not having as much bandwidth as I would like to address the above concerns at the speed I would like. I still haven't got my head around all the feedback provided so far, and I apologise about that. I appreciate peoples patience. Benjamin Gittins (talk)

• Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal, Oo7565, and any other concerned editors: I am thinking about next steps... I am concerned that there are a lot of issues raised in parallel, but i'm not sure how I should prioritise those concerns. What are your collective thoughts on the following strawman process. Step 1. As the person that created this page, I write a short statement about *why* I thought the page was worth creating. Step 2. I systematically address / collect adequate references. Step 3. If previous 2 steps were adequate to address concerns wrt. those points, then look at how the style and content of the page needs to change, and propose various changes. Step 4. Start making changes on the main page. If that sounds about right wrt. process, can the editors please point me to a few links that state what requirements need to be met to justify a page existing. I will then work on point 1, outlining my own motivations for the page, and how I perceive they satisfy (or fall short of) wikipedia requirements. ... Alternatively, if you and the other editors think a different item needs to be addressed as the highest priority, can you and the other editors come to an agreement on what that is, and provide me with links to the pages outlining what needs to be satisfied to address that highest priority point... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
• I increasingly think that this not a naive editor, but, rather, someone using Wikipedia for promotion of a pet cause. This editor knew how to put up citations the day he created this article. With the time he has spent arguing on this AFD, he could have put up any number of solid sources - if he had them. There is a track record of removing tags without fixing the problems. And also of SPAs dedicated to editing this one article, a new SPA appeared during this AFD. Frankly, it feels like we're being played.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What you need to do is show why this group is notable. I don't think you can, but like everyone else here, if it turns out to meet the policies linked above, you can convince us of such and the article can be kept. Look at the
  WP:NORG criteria as well. You might find this helpful: Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging ― Padenton|✉   17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Reply" E.M.Gregory, Padenton, the consensus appears to be that the highest priority is to address solid sources. So I will begin to work on that. See my point below.

• "Reply"
  WP:NORG and Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging and then re-compile a new list of citations that comply with WP guidelines, based on those original citations,. I thank you for your patience. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "Reply" E.M.Gregory, here is my first very quick cut at off-site references. I have extracted this from the original page, so you do not have to wade through links that pointed to copies of articles/videos created by third party sources that were mirrored on the Traubman website.

News Reports

• May/June 1996 - Timeline - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group: Jews and Palestinians Cooperate for Peace
• Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Hundreds of Jews, Palestinians get taste of unity here Article
• Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Grassroots ties bolster peace talks, Mideast envoy says - Article
• November 15, 1997 - San Jose Mercury News - Abraham's Children: Jews, Palestinians seek peace through dialogue
• November 21, 1997 - Christian Science Monitor - To Build a Common Future - Article
• November 22, 1997 - San Mateo Weekly - Editorial - Jews, Palestinians gather together
• Sunday, April 18, 1999 - San Jose Mercury News - Traditional enemies meet as friends
• June 23, 2000 - J Weekly - Palestinian-Jewish quilt offers pattern for peace, social change - Article
• September 22, 2000 - J Weekly - Nadim Zarour, Arab-Jewish dialogue pioneer, dies at 49 - Article
• October 13, 2000 - Santa Cruz Sentinel - Local group brings opposing Palestinians, Jews together - Article
• December 1, 2000 - J Weekly - Teens tackle coexistence, Mideast strife at JCC Club 18 - Article
• March 31, 2001- San Jose Mercury News - Palestinians, Jews can unlearn old habits - Article
• January 19, 2002 - National Journal - The Weekly on Politics and Government - Washington, DC - Jews and Palestinians Begin to Talk, in America
• January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Making peace in the living room - Article
• January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Defusing the intifada in Bay Area living room groups - [15]
• September 11, 2002 - San Francisco Chronicle - 9.11 Voices / A New Life as The Enemy Within - Article
• November 3, 2002 - Associated Press - Student forums help Palestinians, Israelis reach out - Article
• November 3, 2002 - Free Lance-Star - Forums at U.S. campuses try to ease Mideast tensions - Article
• November 26, 2004 - San Francisco Chronicle - Cookbook brings Israelis, Palestinians to the table - Article
• February 1, 2005 - Kalamazoo Gazette - Peace-camp reps build resolve
• September 23, 2005 - J Weekly - 140 Arabs and Jews share ‘magical’ Tawonga weekend - Article
• January 27, 2006 - Oakland Tribune - Scholars, pacifists, praise elections - Article
• June 25, 2006 - YNet News - Explosion of peace efforts - Article
• June 29, 2006 - Golden Gate Xpress - Palestinian-Israeli conflict promotes peaceful student communication
• September 8, 2006 - San Francisco Chronicle - Peaceful setting, intense dialogue - Article
• October 16, 2007 - Oakland Tribune - Palestinians, Jews unite at Yosemite camp - Article
• October 19, 2007 - J Weekly - Jews, Palestinians talk peace under the pines at Tawonga - Article
• October 16, 2008 - CNN Anderson Cooper 360 - Palestinians, Jews engaging and creating - Article
• November 20, 2008 - Cultural IQ - Jews-Palestinians: There's A Meeting in the Living Room - Article
• November 27, 2008 - Jewish Herald-Voice - Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group: Listening In the Midst of the Storm - Article
• January 9, 2009 - Palo Alto Online - Finding world peace in the living room: Local Jews, Palestinians have been learning from each other for 16 years - Article
• January 18, 2009 - Journalist Hana Baba - Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue - Article
• May 05, 2009 - Common Ground News Service - Enemies no more: the power of sustained dialogue - Article
• May 12, 2009 - New Jersey Jewish News - Dialogue forum seeks hope beyond the headlines - Article
• June 01, 2009 - Mideast Youth - Dreamers and Believers Changing Reality - Article
• February 8, 2010 - Journal of Interreligious Dialogue - 214 Dialogues for Peace - Article
• February 16, 2010 - San Francisco Examiner - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogues - [linking to examiner.com blacklisted by Wikipedia]
• February 20, 2012 - Yosef Gotlieb - Peacemakers turn their sights on Nigeria - Article
• April 25, 2012 - NCDD - Harlem Cinema with Audience Participation: Beyond Q&A, Giving Voices to Everyone - Article
• May 3, 2012 - Insight on Conflict - Young Nigerians illustrate life beyond war - Article
• December 13, 2012 - J Weekly - Jewish-Palestinian dialogue group still going strong after 20 years - Website page
• 25 January 2013 - The Washington Post - Food truck will deliver message of Mideast peace - Website page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGittins (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlines?

• It is not clear to me that there is a hard deadline for resolving the issue on this page. That is to say, I cannot see any obvious indication of a deadline with regard to this page achieving a consensus. However, I would prefer not to be caught unaware by some procedural detail only known to those who are regularly involved in considering articles for deletion. Can someone please clarify this point? Also, is there some page of policies and procedures that I should be aware of as one of the people defending this article? Benjamin Gittins (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video

• The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [16]

Thesis

The Dialogue Group and participants have been included as subjects of research papers and theses.

• ARAB-JEWISH COOPERATIVE COEXISTENCE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE by Avi Zer-Aviv -- University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2005
• BRIDGING DIFFERENT TRUTHS: Creating Dialogue for Reconciliation and Healing by Yuichi Ohta -- The International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan, 2003
• BUILDING PEACE BETWEEN PEOPLE: The Role of NGOs in Transforming Relations Between Israelis and Palestinians by Louis-Alexandre Berg -- Brown University, 2000
• A CALL FOR ADVENTURE-BASED CONFLICT RESOLUTION by Shawn M. Dunning -- George Mason University, 2004
• THE COMPASSIONATE LISTENING PROJECT: A Case Study in Citizen Diplomacy and Peacemaking by Marie Pace -- Syracuse University, 2005
• COMPOSING A CIVIC LIFE: Influences of Sustained Dialogue on Post-Graduate Civic Engagement and Civic Life by Ande Diaz -- Fielding Graduate University - Santa Barbara, CA, 2009
• CONVERSATIONS FOR PEACE. An Oral History of the Path to Palestinian and Jewish Reconciliation in Two California Communities by Allison Helise Rubalcava - California State University, Fullerton, 2001
• DIALOGO INTERCULTURAL: Comunidad Arabe y Judia en Chile by Lorenzo Agar Corbinoes & Abraham Magendzo Kolstrein - Santiago, Chile, 2009
• DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, JEWS AND MUSLIMS: The Concept of Covenant as Basis by Ian Rex Fry, RDA - MCD University of Divinity -- Kew, Victoria, Australia, 2012
• EVALUATING PEACE EDUCATION IN THE OSLO-INTIFADA GENERATION: A Long - Term Impact Study of Seeds of Peace 1993-2010 by Ned Lazarus - American University - Washington, DC USA, 2011
• THE FIELD BEYOND WRONGDOING AND RIGHTDOING: A Study of Arab-Jewish Grassroots Dialogue Groups in the United States by Nurete L. Brenner - Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA, 2011
• GENERATING FORGIVENESS AND CONSTRUCTING PEACE THROUGH TRUTHFUL DIALOGUE: Abrahamic Perspectives by Hilarie Roseman -- Macquarie University, Sydney,Australia, 2013
• MUSIC FOR PEACE IN JERUSALEM: A Senior Essay in International Studies by Micah Hendler -- Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2012
• QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: Conflict Resolution Framework and Building Relationships Through Dialogue in the Peace It Together, 2008 Initiative by Danielle Sleiman - Simon Fraser University - Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008
• SHIFT HAPPENS: Transformation During Small Group Interventions in Protracted Social Conflicts by Nike Carstarphen -- George Mason University - Fairfax, VA, 2003
• TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION by Adi Greif -- Stanford University - Stanford, CA, 2006

• Please note that a number of edits were made on this page over the weekend, including moving many of the urls from the External Links section into the References section as they were tied to the text of the page as citations. It is my understanding from reading the instructions that it is best not to have duplicates in the two sections, so it might be helpful to insert some of the unused urls into the page as citations where appropriate. Some of the sections were merged as suggested and a section was added on international activity since there was some concern about the actual impact of the group outside of San Mateo. In addition, a number of media references were added and an effort was made to list direct sources to those media references, rather than referencing The Dialogue Group's list of all their activities since 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

• A thorough and recent interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [17]. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010, [18] Benjamin Gittins (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have the requests for citations of credible sources been adequately addressed by the contents of the updated page and in the links above?

• Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal, have the requests for citations of credible sources been adequately addressed by the contents of the updated page and in the links above? If not, please clarify what additional information is required? Benjamin Gittins (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem here is that most of these are still either just local news (JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc.), Self-published (San Francisco Examiner), opinion articles by members of the group (The Christian Science Monitor article above, CNN Anderson Cooper article, among others), or simply a brief mention of the group (Washington Post article, Associated Press article etc.) I'm still not seeing anything passing
  WP:GNG
  requires "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

1. Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group.
2. Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in
   WP:RS
   , for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published.
3. independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability.

The only sources that matter in this discussion here are those that would satisfy

WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't as of yet, have a view on notability. But as to Padenton's comment above, I agree in part and disagree in part. Sources such as JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc. certainly do count towards notability. Self-published opinion articles by members of the group do not. Brief mentions of the group do not by themselves demonstrate GNG, but if there is enough in Washington Post articles, Associated Press articles, etc., along with the first mentioned sources they can satisfy
  wp:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry, I meant to list

WP:AUD as well: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

They count towards notability. If your point is only that at least one regional or national or international source is necessary, that is true. But those exist as well. Though they are not devoted to the subject. But

Jweekly, for example, is regional covering 20,000 readers, and some of those other refs are RSs ... and the knock on those sources as not counting towards notability is an exaggeration (unintentional) of what our guideline actually says. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:INDEPENDENT sources(many of which have now been listed several times), so if you don't mind, I would appreciate if you would be specific about which one I missed. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Padenton -- that's a bald mis-statement. Of course Jweekly is regional. Where in the world do you come up with the unsupported statement that it only covers San Francisco? That's a mis-statement. Presumably unintentional on your part. Have you read the publication's "About" section, for example. Which clearly states: "the newspaper serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California.". I haven't even !voted as of yet, but I'm concerned about your engaging in exaggerations and mis-statements to support your position. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AUD: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If you look through their articles, jweekly purely covers SF stories. SF Bay area is not a region, it's a few counties. It also fails the "media of limited interest and circulation" requirement. The SF Bay area has 7.5 million people. ― Padenton|✉   17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It does cover the

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, a region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California, which region also surrounds a number of other bays including San Leandro Bay, Suisun Bay, San Rafael Bay, Richardson Bay, Grizzly Bay, and Honker Bay, and which region encompasses the major cities and metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, along with smaller urban and rural areas. It also "serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California." This is what is meant by a "regional" newspaper. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

With regard to notability: Group in the Northern Region of Cameron inspired by the work of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. [1] CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders^[2] International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.^[3] Christian Science Monitor – 8th and 27th sections (count single sentences as sections) of this article specifically mention the group founders and the Dialogue Process used by the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and that the national hub for the Dialogue groups is the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group^[4] Voice of America News Article specifically mentions the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders in the very beginning of the article and again at the end^[5] The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, specifically mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group – see Page 2^[6] The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles specifically mentions the groups founders and the work of the group. See paragraph 2 ^[7] ABC, NBC and CNN interviewed members of the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group during the 2000 Intafada and while the files now have to be accessed through the site of the founders, they do, none-the-less exist, the group was considered “notable” enough for three national new channels to interview its members and the news clips can be watched on either a MAC or a PC. Go to the year 2000 and see the third entry.^[8] The NeedCSI Website in Nigeria notes a Film and Conference for over 200 diverse African women and men which resulted from the International collaboration between the New Era Educational and Charitable Support Foundation and the Jewish Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, California, USA held in Jos, Nigeria ^[9] The United Religions Initiative reports on its website about a project in Nigeria’s Bauchi State that was inspired by the Jos, Nigeria Conference. ^[10] Journal13H – a news program in the Ivory Coast ran a story on the Albino/Non-albino Reconciliation meeting with English subtitles. The Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group was the co sponsor of the gathering and the name of the group can be seen on the banner in the video. Members of the group helped facilitate the meeting. While the group leaders posted the link – the event still happened and it drew media attention in the Ivory Coast. ^[11] The Jewish Herald Voice is not a local paper – it is, in fact, published in Houston, TX^[12] Unicorn46 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are already in the list above and suffer from the problems stated. ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: CNN and MSNBC TV

• CNN World News - 2000, [20]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video.
• CNN Program Transcript, [21]. This talks about the living room group directly.
• MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [22] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly..
• MSNBC-TV news (documented by the United States Institute of Peace) [23]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing the requirements of WP:GNG

• WP:GNG
  . I note that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage"... However in this case Notability continues to resurface over time. Please also note that the links below satisfy the requirement to have at least one regional or national (MSNBC) or international source (CNN, GOLDENROOM).
• CNN World News - 2000, [24] You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. This talks about the living room group directly..
• CNN Program Transcript 2000, [25]. This is the transcript of the above video clip hosted on the CNN website.
• MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [26] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room group directly..
• A interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [27].
• Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010. This talks about the living room group directly.
• CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders ^[1]
• International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.^[2]
• http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7051/grassroots-ties-bolster-peace-talks-mideast-envoy-says/ . This talks about the living room group directly. U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. The diplomat Dennis Roos "heaped praise on the dialogue group, which has promoted the search for common ground between the two peoples for the past five years." "What this group represents is what the peace process is all about," Ross said. "Peace has to connect people. It has to build bonds between people." "I don't want it limited only to America. Frankly, where we need it most is in the area," he said, referring to the Mideast.
• The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [28] -- Directly about the existence and activities of the group.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have the concerns regarding

WP:GNG

now been successfully addressed?

• Dear
  WP:GNG has not been adequately addressed. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, will you please stop spamming the same poor sources as before? It is beginning to get disruptive. I do not have all the time in the world to do your work for you, digging through every article from an unreliable source you post multiple times in this AFD hoping to flood the page so that some inattentive closer will hopefully close it as keep because he can't see anyone in favor of deletion. I am a strong believer in
  WP:NORG then newsflash: your 30-person dinner club is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I still do not see a single source that is INDEPDENDENT of the subject(That means no articles from the creator of the group, or members, and interviews do not count either) and more than LOCAL coverage. Pick some out, post it (and ONLY sources meeting those criteria) below. ― Padenton|✉   20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No. As per Padenton. But also, as I stated above, I have come to suspect that this experienced editor, editing on a rarely edited page that has been edited by a series of SPAs, unusually familiar with Wikipedia procedure, and certainly an avid partisan of this group, seems to be displaying faux ignorance in an effort to game AFD and keep this page live.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rankism. I am concerned that the complaints against Unicorn46 regarding that user's particular skillset, and labelling that user as SPA in this case may be being used as a form of [Rankism] to diminish the independent contributions of that user. I do not see any "gaming" taking place here. Rather, I see a genuine attempt to address the concerns raised by various editors. To be clear, I am not Unicorn46 and I have never met or talked with Unicorn46. I do not use sock puppets. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be very helpful to know why, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Christian Science Monitor, The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM publishing in the UK, The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles are not considered non-local groups reporting on the activities and impact of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Group. It would also be encouraging if we could stay focused on the effort at hand and continue to "assume good faith".Unicorn46 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Unicorn46: It's simple. It's been explained above. Now stop wasting our time.― Padenton|✉   14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate criteria - With regard to [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)]

• Alternate Criteria. Dear Epeefleche,E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal:
• WP:SECONDARY to be notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
  , organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements: "alternate criteria, primary criteria, general notability". With regard to Alternate criteria for non-commercial organisations:
• Some organisations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. - Clearly this groups has achieved both national and international notice, for their local activities as evidenced by CNN and MSNBC. There is is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area with regard to this point.
• Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. -- This group has received over 40 independent citations regarding the group itself, and its activities. You could say, for such as small group, this is a very impressive result, and is notable in its own right. The achievements of this group are also noteworthy.
• I believe this group is notable based on Wikipedia's alternate criteria policy, independent of
  WP:SECONDARY
  .

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the CNN and MSNBC citations?

• Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Can you please explain in more details what is the problem SPECIFICALLY with the MSNBC and CNN citations... I am trying to understand your concern in the context of the primary and alternate notability criteria. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short list of Video sources that are clearly independent, and available online

• Dear
  WP:GNG
  requires "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." 1) Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group. 2) Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published. 3) independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability. -- the following items meet those requirements. Clearly, the following videos have not been manipulated, and so can be considered credible irrespective of some of them being mirrored on the Trabuman website (Citing a/v news media sources is hard, as many of those sources do not keep copies of all their interviews and articles online):
• January 2009 - NBC-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
• January 2009 - KTVU-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
• October 2000 - Heather Ishimaru, ABC-TV News - Video (WMV format)
• CNN'S Don Knapp. CNN World News - 2000, [29]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. The Program Transcript, is here [30]. This talks about the living room group directly.
• MSNBC's Ashley Banfield, MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [31] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly.. It talks about new groups being made as a result. --- This video is documented by the United States Institute of Peace here: [32]
• January 31, 2005 - Channel 8 Kalamazoo - Peace Camp Leaders - Video (WMV format)
• September, 2005 - CBS-TV - Peacemakers Camp News - YouTube Video

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is the problem with these

1. Local news(says so at the start of the video)
2. KTVU is a local news affiliate.
3. ABC-7 is local news.
4. Interviews with members of the group. This fails
   WP:INDEPENDENT
   as I have said several times now.
5. Not about the group. Notability isn't inherited, and you're not notable just because a few new groups are created.
6. Local. Rule of thumb: Anything that says "channel _" or some random 4-character designation (KTVU, etc.) is local news.
7. Local news (cbs5), coverage is not about the group.

The reason these sources don't keep copies of all their interviews and articles hosted online is because they're local news coverage. Stop wasting my time. These have the same exact problems that have already been said multiple times. ― Padenton|✉   17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear
  WP:AUD, this implies that the other 'local news' sources can now be used within the context of the Primary criteria. There are also Alternate criteria for non profit organisations, such as: "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. " Obviously that does not exclude all local media sources, but only media sources that are geographically local. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@BenjaminGittins: The "two videos [I] didn't mention" were ones I in fact mentioned. If you can't understand how to read a numbered list, I don't know how to help you. Is this a non-profit organization? Non-profit organization is a legal classification, it doesn't just apply to any number of people that meets up and doesn't exist for a profit-driven goal. You need to be registered with the government for that, feel free to provide a link to a government database showing this. But even then, there is 0 verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ― Padenton|✉   19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More independent reports from credible sources

*More independent reports from credible sources on the activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group Associated Press Article that mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group ^[1] Associated Press Herald Journal article on how the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group coordinated a dialogue at Georgetown University ^[2] Washington Post - See 5th paragraph after the second picture ^[3] The activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group have reached far beyond their beginnings as a group of concerned citizens meeting in a living room in 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the problem with these

1. Brief mention. There is no discussion of the group. Len Traubman is quoted, and Traubman is mentioned as the founder of the group. This article says absolutely nothing about the group itself.
2. Brief mention. Helping coordinate an event doesn't give a group notability. A source being used to establish a group's notability needs to provide significant coverage of the group. I.e. a standalone article should be able to be made based on its information. This is not the case here. From this source, the most that could be said about the group is that it helped coordinate an event.
3. Again, brief mention. This article is about a food truck owner. Libby Traubman is quoted, and introduced as the co-founder of the group: "said Libby Traubman, co-founder of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue, which tries to facilitate interaction between Arabs and Jews. “It think it will work because, well, everyone likes food.”" There is no other mention of the group in this article.

These show nothing about the groups notability. It suggests (to me) that Len and Libby Traubman might meet the notability guidelines(with other sources), but there is nothing here to suggest that the living room group is notable. ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Padenton, the observation that one person is the group's contact point and thus more-interviewed is not reason to diminish the group's collective global effects, any more than if another group's executive director is more commonly interviewed to describe a collective endeavour. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

in a news source that is not local news. ― Padenton|✉   19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep but TNT: Surprisingly the subject of the article passes
  YO 😜 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The wide variety of sources brought forward during this debate show the notability of the group quite convincingly. The combative and dogged behavior of an editor fighting to delete the article is unseemly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YO 😜 02:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Meets GNG. Some of the arguments above are troubling, in that they are not just wrong-headed but border on something worse. We have sufficient substantial coverage from appropriate RSs to warrant a keep !vote. Some of this may not have been evident to early !voters, but the discussion has been helpful in this regard. Obviously the article needs cleaning -- but that is irrelevant to the !voting here, as AfD is not for cleanup. Kudos to the above editor for offering to clean it up. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT. I agree with Epeefleche - there are sources that bring this to GNG (e.g. the Xtian Sci Monitor article ([34]). The problem is that the article itself is not written in an encylopedic style and has lots of extraneous stuff. Most of the "Means of Change" section is unrelated to the group and may need wholesale removal. The Activities section is way overdone. The DVD section simply should be removed. It's got major reference spam. TNT is the only solution. I'm willing to help, but it's a big job. Any other offers? LaMona (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a "deep edit" to be found here User:LaMona/tnt. It still has a lot of OR in the list of related groups, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I removed all non-RS sources (other than those in that list). I did not add other sources that have surfaced here. Anyone have a comment? LaMona (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2015 (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.

Jennifer Aaker

Jennifer Aaker (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)

Solely promotional page written like an extended resume, would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 14:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep We may be able to cut down on some promotional tone, but this has a lot of sourced prose, so it isn't too much like a resume and wouldn't require a rewrite. Some bulleted sections are allowed, particularly in standard WP biography sections like Publications or Bibliography (which might just be better renamed Further reading). The subject is definitely notable per
  Talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Very clear passes of
  WP:PROF#C5 (named chair at Stanford) and #C1 (citation counts 4936, 945, 903, etc). Article does not look irredeemably promotional to me; it mostly recounts her accomplishments, exactly as such an article is supposed to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep When I de-PRODded this, I alreay indicated a clear pass of
  WP:ACADEMIC, so I am a bit surprised to find this at AfD. If something is irredeemably promotional, it should be speedily deleted (CSD#G11). Obviously, this is not a G11, so the article needs cleanup, not an AfD. I have already pared down the fluff a bit. The best thing would probably be to stubify the thing and then re-expand from there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep i'm not surprised. there is a clear drift of delete at all costs, no matter of how nonsensical. they have no shame; they will not collaborate. "needs a rewrite, so delete," lol Duckduckstop (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? I have contributed much more content to Wikipedia than I have proposed for deletion, so if you have some chip on your shoulder don't come passive aggressively insulting me about it. Thanks to everyone else who has contributed by stripping the article of promotional content. Citobun (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see you at wikimania; there i will tell you who i am. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2015 (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) 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie and the Bhoys

Charlie and the Bhoys (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 music group. Brief mentions are made in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:- per
  t@lk to M£ 15:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: meets
  WP:GNG, as per sources above. Esquivalience ^t 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Passes
  WP:GNG, per all the sources listed above, and the ones in the article itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: links from a few from loads of other wiki sites. Tommy Burns (footballer), Johnny Doyle, Willie Maley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabthekebab (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  reliable sources are much better than mentions in other Wiki articles, although this article appears to have both. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (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. Article should be cleaned up, but plenty of evidence of notability was found. Shii (tock) 07:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Grundmann

Reiner Grundmann (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)

Notability not established, issues have been pointed out back in 2014 September on talk page, poor citing, most to blog posts from person and to his own publications, and often cites which do not conform to Wikipedia standards.

• Keep, prune and improve. Professor in Nottingham with publications in the German National Library (I added that), notable enough I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is some level of notability, looking at some unsourced content and a look at media appearance, but i could go there and delete half of the page or more(when removing listing of pubs), based on above issues. Thus, my impression is that the notability is over hyped, especially if you consider some of his involvement with his input about

prokaryotes (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Since you posted on my talk page

prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not sure what sort of google you use, but mine didn't have any problem to confirm his contribution to the British Science festival and his presidency with the sociology section of the BSA. Serten 20:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Having publications in the German National Library is not significant. The catalogue all publication in Germany - I even found one of my technical reports from the 1990s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional information about the person, http://www.academia.edu/4754580/Debunking_skeptical_propaganda_Book_review_of_Oreskes_Conway_Merchants_of_Doubt & https://twitter.com/reinergrundmann/status/389419692642680832 Imho, his quest for knowledge appears to be agenda driven, and the current article version is careful to avoid his stance on climate science and reporting. Which comes to no surprise, because the editor who created the page is a known climate denier in the German Wikipediasphere (Previous Ger WP account of page creator Polentario), and Grundmann edited the page himself. Thus, COI would apply as well, and page creation can be seen as a way to create notability in the first place.
  prokaryotes (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd like to add that i have read now two papers from him, but cannot judge him at this point. However, i don't think his work is that important, not the best, not extensive enough. Additionally, he doesn't seem to bother with pointing out errors of the science he quotes, he just quotes mainstream facts and compares both sides, and doesn't seem to be aware of all the science - he just skips a lot. But he might become notable in the future, i.e. in the case his papers gain traction and are judged by notable reviews in a peer-reviewed process or the related media. Thus, for now i suggest if required his work could be mentioned on related articles.

prokaryotes (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete He writes papers and stuff, which is what all academics do. I don't see that he passes even the extremely low bar of
  talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - As Boris points out, he doesn't seem to meet PROF. In addition, the article is mostly original synthesis based on his publications. The few third-party sources that exist in the article don't speak to his importance or significance; take them out and there's almost nothing left (a book review, an interview on a blog) and even less would be appropriate for a BLP. Guettarda (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Guettarda says: there is a lack of reliable sources speaking to his notability. Aside, perhaps, from his trying to puff up "climategate", which does suggest some kind of agenda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. First the
  Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT
  respectively Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE HIM of both an author and his works is no base for an afd. Writing about climategate and its effects, as Grundmann did (doi 10.1002/wcc.166), is scholarschip. The agenda is yours.

* I might have made the error to base the noteability on the German rules - a scholar with a

prokaryotes

.

* Prokaryotes accusations about the section Reiner_Grundmann#Peer_review_and_climate_change are being far from accurate and accusing me to carefully avoid his stance on climate is a sort of fairy tale. Either have the cake or eat it. Grundmann is mentioned as a coathor of the The Hartwell Paper (clear indication of a political cloud far from the denial crowd) and as an author of prestigeous books and studies comparing the political dealings with Ozone depletion and climate change and dealt as well with Climategate and its political effects. If you don't like the findings, no reason for an AfD, as said. I point out Grundmann's stance on Hans von Storch's science blog Klimazwiebel as well and refer to a controversy in the peer reviewed literature using various scientific entries. Finally just to quote the Nottingham University website: [nottingham.ac.uk/Sociology/People/reiner.grundmann Reiner Grundmann joined the University of Nottingham in September 2012 as Professor in Science and Technology Studies from Aston University where he was heading the Sociology department over many years. Reiner ... first degree in Sociology from the Free University in Berlin ... PhD in Political and Social Sciences ... European University Institute, Florence ...obtained a German Habilitation (Comment: full regalia for german tenure) from Bielefeld University. Before moving to the UK he was researcher at the Wissenschaftszentrum in Berlin (Germany) and at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (Cologne, Germany).]

* That said, the AfD is sort of contentious.

Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT

respectively Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE HIM. Serten 20:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Disclosure, last March Serten filed an successful AfD on my article about the scientific consensus on climate change, over at the German wikipedia, and the page was deleted. Because i tried to explain the issues with the Grundmann article to Serten on the article talk page already in detail, i have nothing else to add, unless someone wants more links or a translation etc.
  prokaryotes (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thats sorta wrong. I filed a successfull AfD in the deWP on Prokaryotes Bablefish translation of

Scientific opinion on climate change

. Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

a scholar with a habilitation, a research career at Germanys most prestigous reseacrh center (Max Planck Gesellschaft), tenure resp. head of department in Aston and Nottingham

PROF asks for more than this: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)"

contributing to the British Science festival with a presidential session (as president of the sociology section of the British Science Association

PROF asks for more than this: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

and some dozens of books translated in different languages and even more peer reviewed publications, published at Routledge, Taylor and Francis, Oxford and Cambridge university press, Suhrkamp and others in different languages and Worldcat providing 355 entries

Then it shouldn't be difficult meet this requirement of PROF: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. But what we need are reliable secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I based larger parts of the articles on peer reviewed publications and scientific text books - that means, those books and entrys already went through independent checking and reviews. You seem to tell the audience here, that a peer reviewed contribution is same level as a blog entry. Thats sort of contentious again. That said, I have added various English reviews in scientific journals, some german and others are yet to come. Serten 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No,I didn't say anything like "a peer reviewed contribution is [the] same level as a blog entry". Sorry, that's simply untrue.

We can't use Grundmann's publications to discuss the significance of Grundmann's publications. That shouldn't be all that difficult to grasp. Nor can we count Grundmann's publications and use that tally to assert that made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. His works are not independent sources. They're the opposite of independent. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I inserted some reviews, including

Frank Sherwood Rowland

with Stimulating and thought-provoking. The quoted WP_Prof requirements are no must, but shalls, but see no reason for doubt against notability. You? Serten 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC) I am OK with the request for reviews, it gets however contentious again, if major points from Grundmanns science books and peer reviewed papers are being tagged as needing third party confirmations. An article about a scholar, needs third party reviews proving that he or she may be noteable. It doesnt need third party sources to confirm that he has written certain stuff. Thats being based and depicted on his work, books and papers. (added by Serten)

• Keep but trim. Unquestionably notable. Author of major academic works published by some of the very most important academic publishers. His Transnational environmental policy reconstructing ozone (Routledge) is in 580 libraries a/c WorldCat [35]; Marxism and ecology published by OUP is in 296 libraries; The power of scientific knowledge : from research to public policy(Cambridge Univ. Press) is in 231. nAny author with the record is notable by WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR> I can see no basis at all for the deletion arguments . "what all academic do"-- very few indeed have written books published by both OUP and CUP; "climategate" -- irrelevant. "His work is not the best" -- we do not make that judgment, the academic publishers do--the multiple very high level reviews always obtained by referees for publishers like CUP and OUP have much better judgment than we do in such matters "RS" If you want to fulfill the GNG, the RSs are the book reviews, but WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, on the basis that judgments of notability within the academic world is the standard of academic notability. The PROf statements for named chair or the like are just shortcuts for the most obvious cases.--the basic standard is acceptance by those in the field as an authority, and the basic proof for this is publications. Furthermore, with the reviews, it meets WP:AUTHOR.

The only cases where a person with this level of an academic record have ever been deleted here for lack of notability have been a very few times for people whose views on some controversial subject were unpopular at WP, and such deletions do us no credit. Ivery much hope that this sort of prejudice is not the motive here.

What is however true is the nominator's statement that the article is much too full of the subjects opinions, and not a npov description of his career. I tried to fix some of this in 2014, but the fluff is back again, re-added by

WP:TNT and have it rewritten in a more proper way. Or even G11, as promotional and impossible to fix by normal editing. I would feel much better about this if that editor would promise to stay away from the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You made some good points, also this TNT thingy sounds interesting. And because the article could be helpful to state the person's views more clearly, which would be a service to every interested reader, and i imagine there are many who wonder who is this guy who criticises Oreskes, the IPCC, climate scientists and equals them with deniers.

prokaryotes (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a diametrically opposite view regarding your comments about less-than-noble motives. If someone really wanted to "get" an academic that they disagreed with, one of the best ways would be to have a Wikipedia article about them where it could be filled with criticism, or the subject of never-ending battles over one thing or another. I certainly wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my closest and most valued colleagues.

talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate - DGG checked notability. Prokaryotes had been made aware of Reiners h-index (16 since 2010), he didn't care. The AfD has got a sort of interesting timing, as I was longer absent from the enWP recently, the article itself has not been touched by anyone involved since December 2014. Nothing happened since. I will accept now the reduction the list of peer reviewed papers and book chapters as foreseen by DGG. Far from anything WP:TNT is being called for.

@

Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The only climate related conflicts I registered is a) the one with Lever Tracy, and b) the one about climategate and its moral impact. Both have been described from the very start. The most interesting conflict he's been in is the one in the New left and a recent Springer volume by PRC scholars about the Marx-and-ecology: Grundmanns interpretation of mastery of nature by man is of interest, globally, as being shown now with the works of scholars from PRC and (South...) Korea.

I am sort of annoyed about the COI allegation. A German sociologist writing about ClimateChange/Ozone and or doing a review of Oreskes Merchands of doubts in a sociology journal puts them into perspective. He is far from the anglo quasireligious infights in that realm. Thats one of the reasons his work was praised as groundbreaking. Serten 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where the nature of his views is relevant one way or the other to establishing his WP:notability.

As for your comment on his h index, a value of 16 is completely unremarkable in most fields I'm familiar with (especially if it is the inflated Google Scholar h index rather than the Web of Science one). If sociologists tend to publish far less than the physical sciences, maybe h=16 would argue in favor of notability. DGG, can you comment on this?

talk) 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Prokaryotes made a lot of comments on his views. That should not be an issue here. H-index: pre 2010 is 21. It seems to be be feasible to have a WP entry with less, so may be its again dependend on his views. Serten 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: - I'm curious about the significance of the fact that his book Transnational environmental policy reconstructing ozone is held by 580 libraries if, according to Google Scholar, it has only been cited 50 times (and given the way Google Scholar inflates citations, the real number is probably lower). These aren't all physical copies (I clicked on a few to check and they are electronic copies) and I know that publishers offer huge bundles of older e-books to libraries. Should we really be putting weight on numbers of copies held by libraries if a lot of those copies are virtual? Guettarda (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the difference between the social sciences/humanities and sciences. Citations of books and mainly by other books, and come to a much lower number than citations of articles. In the sciences, it is routine doe an article to cite every possible article that relates to the subject in a substantial way, and most of them are just listed, not discussed. In the social sciences, it is normal for a book to cite only the particular other books that the author wishes to specifically discuss. The most exact way of evaluating holdings of books is in contrast to other books in the subject--this is a little complicated, and I defer this--its more of a research project than I think warranted in the present case.

I do not base my judgment of notability as an author on this particular book; it is published by Routledge, which is a good but not absolutely first rate publisher. If he had published nothing else, I might not be arguing for notability at all. I base it on the books published by CUP and OUP , which are in another league altogether, several levels up. Traditionally in most fields the two highest quality English language academic publishers-- or 3, if you add PrincetonUP; in this particular field, I'd also add ChicagoUP. I would certainly maintain that any academic book published by them is notable, and any author publishing two books by these presses is notable, and no further analysis is necessary for notability any more than further analysis is necessary for a major prize. I can enlarge on this in another place--the WP standards for notability of books is worth some further discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thnxs DGG. Important is as well that book reviews (as the one on merchants of doubt) ar much more important in social sciences but do not add to most indexes. This sort of review is based on invitations by the journal, so its a one to one issue as well. I might add as well that Grundmann's Work as a social scientist has passed several language and cultural barriers. DGG has mentioned prestigous UK publishers, but anything with Suhrkamp_Verlag#Academic_authors or Velbrück can be considered as main contribution in the field, Campus Verlag is like routledge, OK but another league. The article contains now some recent schlolarly entries from China about the marx/ecology issue with Reiner Grundmann in the title. Serten 10:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. For clarity can you explain in what specific way these books satisfy WP's formal BLP notability guidelines, since that's what we should be concerned with here? (The real problem is the reprehensible laxness of our BLP notability criteria, but that's not something we can settle in this venue.)

talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep but delete all but 2-3 sentences Almost all of this article was created without consideration of Wikipedia's
  reliable sources guidelines. I acknowledge the effort but Wikipedia does not publish content in this way and this article is the result of an unfortunate misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that the papers written by the subject of the article are cited as sources of his work, when instead Wikipedia reports what other people have said about the subjects of articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Giddens (much more selfquote) and compare it to the poorly sourced Naomi Oreskes
    . The AfD triggered some improvement on the Grundmann article, it contains now a large variety of third party reviews and references and the tagged statements are either sourced, properly reworded or deleted. Serten 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds

WP:Snow

for any AfD as well there. I ask to close the discussion here. Serten 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete In my opinion he doesn't pass [[WP:PROF]. And I doubt that the presentation is neutral, especially since the main author seems to use him to support his clear agenda to raise doubt in a lot of quite settled scientific fields, especially climate change. Just look at Naomi Oreskes: With Merchants of Doubt they have presented a well-respected work about climate change denial, which has been cited more than 800 times since publication in 2010. And now Serten uses Grundmann's single opinion (the Heartland Institute is criticised by Oreskes, so that doesn't count) to fully rebut Merchants of Doubt, of course without mentioning all the scientific praise for the book. If you takes this, the missing of elemental notability standards and add the POV in the Grundmann article, the solution can only be the deletion of the article. --84.170.141.233 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Grundmann did actual research comparing Ozone and climate policies, praised by the Noble prize winner (chemistry) in question. Oreske blames Seitz and Singer for whatever evil in a popular book. Two retreated phycisists killed Kyoto? Hilarious. If youre interested in actual science and policy interaction, read STS studies. Grundmann is one of the scholars in the field with international renown.
  WP:JDL
  again. Serten 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't throw smoke grenades. Oreskes best publication was cited much better than all of Grundmann's publications together (!). And Merchants of Doubt alone has more than halve of the cites Grundmann got in his total scientific life. But thank you for showing that you have a political agenda, which is to reject Oreskes work as unscientific. And thats the POV the Grundmann article is made of. Which is why it should be deleted. 84.170.142.6 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK are both applicable, for all Grundmann books with one or two translations. Oreskes wrote a popular bestseller about the US specific shenanigins of Seitz and Singer in the climate/ozone/etc wars. Grundmann took years (and his habilitation) to conclude his studies about Transnational Environmental Policy (which led e.g. to a case study in The Power of Scientific Knowledge and is a base of Experts and Power of Expertise). That said, its not easy to compare, but I wonder, why no one asks for third party sources and scientific reviews for the Oreske article. It should be rather easy to add and quote them, it took me not much time to add some more to the Grundmann article (just found another STS review of Oreskes by Brian Wynne

). The books mentioned above have full regalia to be noteable on their own. I wonder as well why someone researching the very topic we are using and displaying in wikipedia - knowledge - in standard textbooks as the Routledge Critical Concepts series could ever be thought of being deleted. Serten 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• KEEP: Grundmann is unquestionably notable. Per comments above, article could be trimmed & improved. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is now an ANI discussion involving the page creator, in part related to this AfD and other pages related to Grundmann edits. The user added to various articles mentions of Grundmann and cites to his work, i.e. four times at
  prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sorry, but I don't understand what's going on. In JSTOR I found two reviews of books he's written/edited, he's mentioned/cited in at least a dozen articles that JSTOR pulled up, and I find citations and references all over Google Books as well, including [36], [37], [38], [39]. In other words, that should be an easy keep. Now, the article is terrible. Sorry Serten, but it is. The subject, however, is notable. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the outstanding analysis by DGG, who has shown for many years that he knows what he is talking about here on such matters. That being said, Serten should step aside from editing this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: I work on the German entry for Grundmann now. I won't edit on the enWP article for two months after the afd is closed. If I have an issue or suggestion, I will use the talk page. Serten 02:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaf markup language

Swaf markup language (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)

One-man project; no sources cited, and none that I could find in quick web search, to establish

• Also nominating the duplicate (now redirect) Swaf. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Restoring AfD tag and tentative delete for no good sources (of the markup language) found. I do see other potentially notable uses of "swaf" as acronyms or names. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find any reliable sources for this. Not notable enough to include as its own page. Tinton5 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominating the duplicate SWAF markup language — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Louhivuori

Mikko Louhivuori (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 priest, somehow connected to Near Eastern archaeology. Maybe we should redirect it to Near Eastern archaeology. Hajme 09:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So many unreliable souces are present on web; some are in non-English. It's not clear whether they mention the same person or different persons with the same name.--C E (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete -- The question is whether he qualifies as an academic. I am afraid that I am doubtful as to whether he does. A few dissertations is certainly not enough. Apart from that he appears to have published a handful of articles. A redirect to his subject is unhelpful to users, as he has studied spcific aspect of it. Brill and Continuum are academic publishers. If he looked as if he had produced one or more entire books, I would probably have voted to keep, but I do not think he has crossed the threshold of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete with the "weak" being mainly that I have no confidence in finding appropriate sources. However, of the sources listed, most are his own writings, and I don't see anything that would raise him to
  wp:academic levels. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep The
  American Schools of Oriental Research is an online newsletter of Near Eastern archaeology, he can be sourced to it for being mentioned as a working archaeologist [40] And to other archaeological websites as well [[41]]. Plus he does have a WP page in Finnish [42], and a substantial publication record. Writing a better article would require reading sources in Finnish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  WP:ACADEMIC, and also fails for general notability. I appreciate that you work hard to save articles, but I still don't think this one passes muster. LaMona (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Still weak delete -- Even after looking at Finnish WP (a language that I do not understand), I do not think he has done or published enough to be notable. Certainly he has published a few articles and perhaps a couple of theological works, but no way doies that lift him to the level of
  WP:ACADEMIC. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Struck duplicate !vote, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indicia of notability here. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 19 May 2015 (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 delete per CSD:A7. The article also appears to have been created as part of evading a block.. Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MemeSpeak

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

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

Subject of the article fails

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. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Brewton

Pete Brewton (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)

A

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 11:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Despite the article's claim, there is no evidence that his book was a best seller or notable outside the usual conspiracy websites. Fails
  Location (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]