Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 11 November 13 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of number-one

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

Fails

WP:LISTPURP. It's not even clear (in its current iteration, or in its initial version) what topic it's exactly meant to cover. List articles with "number-one" in their name? Lists of the top X for various values of X? A music-specific index of lists of number-one songs and albums? "List(s) of number-one" seems like an implausible search term (and what would that reader even be looking for?). Zero incoming links. Colin M (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I also intend to

WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SYNTH because the inclusion criteria are not based on any sensible reading of reliable sources. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nblund talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Per
    WP:CLN, lists and categories are complementary not exclusive and so we do not delete one to favour the other. Lists are better than categories for sensitive content like this because entries can be supported by citations which verify the classification. For example, consider category:Climate change skepticism and denial. This does not contain well-established sceptics such as Freeman Dyson. Instead, it contains disputed entries like Andrew Neil. That category is appalling as a list of BLPs because it doesn't qualify, explain or verify its entries. The list is better in this respect because each entry requires a supporting citation and they have been scrutinised and debated at length. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A hit list for activists?? Nonsense. That certain people claim (or have claimed) that GW/CC should be dismissed because certain other people – allegedly "scientists" – disagree, then it is reasonable that this claim be verifiable by seeing just who is alleged to disagree. As to "implied BLP dangers" – what would those be? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all voices should be heard, and apparently 7 other AfDs had the same conclusion. You speak of organizing or discriminating based on profession. That is a content issue for the talk page, but not a reason to delete IMO. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inaccurate characterization. 3 of those previous AfDs did not come to the same conclusion, including the two most recent (they failed to come to a conclusion, which is not the same as concluding it should be kept). Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is definitely not here to make sure "all voices" are heard.
If you're asking if we "discriminate" by emphasizing climatology from actual climatologists. Then yes. Wikipedia's guidelines make it very clear that we're supposed to do that. ApLundell (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a list of climatologists. I know the list offends you because of the word you used "cranks". The list is not about you or me, it is for our readers, and this easily passes NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I noticed. That's part of the reason it should be deleted. The title "Scientist" does not give someone any special authority with regards to climate change. I argue that it therefore fails NLIST, so far as NLIST advocates any policy at all, because it's a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization".
ApLundell (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists which give the article notability allow any type of scientist, not just climate scientists. Wikipedia doing otherwise would be original research. And personally I think that is one aspect of things like the Oregon Petition that was right and which is also done in
Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a remarkable statement that I missed on first read through. If I understand this justification correctly, the list here is "basing its notability" on lists that are acknowledged to be problematic (e.g. Oregon Petition), but this list is being used to
fix those problems by redoing that misguided work in a better manner. Is that about right? jps (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The justification is the notability of the topic as shown by reliable sources discussing the lists. We have to base the criteria on the lists but you'll see at
Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You are assuming extremely problematic points such as (*) that sources such as the Oregon Petition are reliable for this purpose and (*) the groups being referred to are the same as those that are being delineated in this monstrosity. Neither of those points are ones with which I agree. jps (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. "Economists, chemists, zoologists, Astronaut" Come on - read their CVs. 2. There are many articles in Wikipedia discussing issues relating to 2-3% of populations. 3. What exactly is meant by, "the scientific consensus on global warming". There is conflation - even confusion between , "Is the climate changing?" , "Why is the climate is changing?" , "Can we prevent any climate change?" and "What can we do about any changed climate?". These issues are not yet solved. All this is worthy of investigation, including the legitimate uncertainties. Simply deleting this article does not conclude these ongoing and massive issues. Eohsloohcs (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no problems having Professor Mickey Mouse climbing aboard the climate alarmist bandwagon.[1]
- however if you are a person with high credentials in this field, who casts doubt on this theology - that climate change is largely our fault, due to our reckless energy consumption which produces CO2, you will (be called a crank on this page) and get blacklisted. Eohsloohcs (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/11000-scientists-including-professor-mickey-mouse-warn-of-climate-emergency/news-story/95501dffad5c64507874f47f15d8b50b
  • Keep. While I agree there problems with people trying to puff it up, and the inclusion criteria could be improved, yet it is a place where the generalized notion of "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" is particularized as these "scientists". And that is very useful for seeing who they are, what kind of records they have, and the generally pathetic nature of the "lots of scientists disagree" argument. As to "no value in a list like this" because these aren't "real" scientists, or their statements are out of date: well, yes, that is the nature of every such list that the deniers have prepared or alluded to – these are not serious scientists, etc. Indeed, the main reason this list has gotten as big as it is because the deniers keep wanting to add to it. As long as the denialists argue that "there are scientists who disagree" with the mainstream view a list of such scientists is notable, and we should retain it. It is not
    WP:DUE
    in showing how thin and weak is this alleged doubt.
The article should improved, but not deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the value of this list is that it's an intentionally lousy list to shame the crackpots? ApLundell (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles that make mention of who exactly holds such opinions (or has in the past). E.g. Oregon Petition. Rather than Wikipedia keeping its own mish-mash fight of who is a) or b), let's report on how others decide how to make these sorts of misguided lists. jps (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That petition is the mish-mash but it is part of the basis for notability of the topic.
As to 'value'. I think the list has value - but is not Wikipedia's job to consider the value of topics, only their notability. On the same basis what is the value of the Oregon Petition? Or hundreds of Pokemon games? Notability is the basis for inclusion. Value to society should not be considered - that way lies censorship.
Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, this is NOT an "intentionally lousy list", it is a particularization of the hand-wavy claim that "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" with the mainstream assessment. It provides a basis for our readers to see if there is any substance to this claim. If anyone ("crackpot" or not) feels shame for pushing this crappy claim, or for disagreeing against a tidal wave of evidence, hey, that's their choice.
The "Oregon Petition" does not support the claim that "LOTS of scientists disagree"; I am not aware of any other article that does. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentionally lousy as it intentionally and without apology abrogates an alphabet soup worth of
WP:OR). No article on Wikipedia should support the claim that "LOTS" of scientists disagree. I'm not sure why you invoked that straw man. jps (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Where's List of scientists who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? It's ~50 times the size of this article and pretty infeasible to manage; this having an article just for being a smaller topic is UNDUE. The differences between each person's positions at various times – one citation is from 1967 for some reason! – should not be reduced to a list of names without specifying details of "questioning the accuracy" and is not covered as a list in RSes. Reywas92Talk 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable topic. That the sources that made it notable are stupid and not put into science magazines is not relevant. It passes the criteria for a list on Wikipedia. That it includes mostly scientists who have nothing to do with climate science is what the sources for notability do. Deleting it simply sends people to rubbish lists like the Oregon Petition, it does not help with the education aim of Wikipedia. This is about as good a list as one can get and is a basis for rational thought. I really wish Wikipedia editors would give up the idea of deleting anything which they don't like. Anything notable is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover and we should do so or Wikipedia will lose its reputation for neutral pint of view. We are not here to bowdlerize for the idiot public and convince them of the rightness of our ideas. We are simply here to present what is notable in as plain straightforward and factual a way as we can.
    Dmcq (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why is the Oregon Petition a rubbish list but this list is not a rubbish list? jps (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was self selected and not properly checked. We have an article about it
Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the rubbishness you've described with respect to the Oregon Petition is the same rubbishness from which our list suffers save one: the people we include are done so on anonymous users'
original research to determine (a) the person is a "scientist" and (b) the person disagrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. At least with the Oregon Petition, it isn't our fault that it is rubbish. jps (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you have a funny idea of what
Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Articles that comply with
WP:OR by pointing to reliable sources that support the existence of a discrete "group" and that define the inclusion/exclusion criteria for that group. This article doesn't have that kind of support because the only sources that try to assemble these sorts of list are fringe advocacy organizations. I'm sure I could compile a list of Italian sex criminals, Serial killers who were registered Democrats, or Pilots who think we faked the moon landing, but those sorts of groupings would be meaningless and would really only serve to push a POV. Nblund talk 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Produce reliable sources that talk about those lists you made up and that would be good evidence of their notability according to
Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"Those lists" - that is exactly the problem. The lists reliable sources talk about are different from the list we have.
  • Some crackpot compiles a list of "X that did Y", in order to "prove" that there is a connection between X and Y.
  • Reliable sources talk about that list, pointing out that they do not prove what they claim to.
  • Wikipedia editors compile another list of "X that did Y". This list contains different Xes, and it is a different list. If you believe in
    Platonic ideals
    , they both exemplify the same real thing, so somehow, one could argue that the reliable sources talk about the list the Wikipedian made. But in reality, they do not. The original crackpot and the Wikipedians have different criteria, and they have partly different goals. Therefore the sources that talk about the crackpot's list are not talking about the Wikipedia list, and they do not justify its existence.
This type of list is qualitatively different from
List of the kings of Epirus, List of intergovernmental organizations or even List of monuments damaged by conflict in the Middle East during the 21st century
, because criteria for those lists have straightforward definitions. The people who work on those lists do not have to discuss "what exactly is a mountain", or "does this guy count as a king?" - professionals already decided that for them. But there are no professionals who define who belongs on a list like this.
List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, which someone mentioned below, is also pretty clear.
List of popes is based on sources which already (arbitrarily) decided who counts as a pope, as opposed to an antipope. No Wikipedians need to invent their own criteria, as they did for the scientists-who-disagree list. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: There is so much wrong with this list that I'm unsure where to begin. I'll start by agreeing with the sound objections above. If someone is prominent in this area they should be mentioned or quoted at Climate change denial and/or it should be discussed within their BLP. There's no NPOV way to maintain such a list. The phrase "who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus" is so vague that it could even include a scientist who thinks climate change will be worse than the consensus view. --mikeu talk 00:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has been said in the short time since I commented above. I've reviewed the points discussed below and find support for this list unpersuasive. The criteria for inclusion has not been significantly improved since the last discussion ~5 years ago. The shortcomings of this list are blatant and unaddressed. On the off-chance that someone is willing to put in a great deal of effort to start a new list with much stricter criteria I would also be ok with a fresh start in draft space. --mikeu talk 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have their own articles. This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type. I clicked a name at random David Legates and it has a lot about his climate opinions in the article for him. Are all of these scientists mostly known for their stance on climate? Do they at least get coverage for their stance on climate? Dream Focus 02:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the problem with this list - it is not a lists of "scientists of this type", it is a mishmash of all different types of scientists, with contradictory opinions, conflicting statements and differning expertise (from a lot to none whatsoever). Many of these 'scientists' are not 'mostly known for their stance on climate change' - for example, the list includes a biochemist and general curmudgeon who the last time he shot his mouth off became a poster-boy for the HIV/AIDS denialists. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you (and Alexbrn) have not read the previous comments, and/or don't understand the difference between 1) making a claim (that "LOTS of scientists disagree ..."), and 2) presenting the evidence that (allegedly!) supports the claim. Also, the Oregon Petition, with its 30,000+ signatories, is not "enough for finding" alleged scientists that disagree (distinct from those who claim some kind of association with science). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read them. I just see no reason why we should "present the evidence". Wikipedia editors wrote this list. They decided it is a subject worth writing about. They decided what the criteria are for inclusion in it. They decided how to subcategorize it, with detailed descriptions of what people in the categories believe and what they do not believe. They could, with the same justification, have written another list, on another, slightly different subject, with other inclusion criteria and other subcategories. Now please go compare that to
WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"Wikipedia editors wrote this list [etc.]": of course, who else writes any list/article on WP? And all those functions you cite are routine editorial functions, applicable to all lists. You seem to think that WP editors shouldn't assemble any kind of list ("original work") beyond copying the list from a source (which then runs into copyvio problems). This is an incorrect view of
WP:OR
. WP:OR prohibits "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" – where do you see that? WP:OR prohibits any material that is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". Can you point to (or better yet, tag) any such material here?
For all the "OR-waving" going on here I have yet to see anyone point to specific instances of WP:OR. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an argument that assembling a list is routine and not original. I don't buy it. What is "new analysis" is the connection between (a) credentials of a scientist and (b) denial of a particular conceptualization of the scientific consensus on global warming. This requires leaps of interpretation to do and is best left to the production by competent experts who can have their assemblage vetted by third parties. What we should not be doing here at Wikipedia is inventing such lists. That's where
WP:OR. I would turn your question around. What source do we have which indicates that anyone else has ever assembled a list like this anywhere? jps (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
How about this source: Heartland's 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
See also McCright and Dunlap 2000 ("Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem", available here), who review a number of "lists of skeptics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heartland's list? Really? That's the reliable source you think we are basing our list on? I think you must be joking here. Crucially, McCright and Dunlap do not argue in favor the criteria we specify for lists. jps (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - Tentative, because I do see some merit in the list but I share the concern that people will be added to this list based on weak evidence (e.g. statements they ma have made years or decades ago). If we do keep this article, it will have to be rigorously patrolled and the
WP:RS policy will need to be scrutinized to ensure that the sourcing is timely and that the statements being attributed are not later contradicted by later statements by the same person. A better approach IMHO would be to specifically single out scientists who have gone on record as disagreeing with AGW consensus. Omanlured (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • History The nominator advertised this nomination elsewhere, saying "I couldn't find any past AfDs on this..." This was puzzling as the topic has an extensive history at AfD. Looking into this, I reckon that the use of the {{
    DRV
    4 times too. And, of course, the page is still here. Since the page was created in 2005, over 14 years ago, it has been edited over 4000 times by over 700 editors. Last year, it was read over 100,000 times and so, over the years, it must have had over a million readers. And that's not counting all the mirrors and translations.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason

Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising AfDs (neutrally) on relevant noticeboards is a good thing. The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then.
talk) 14:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Alexbrn is the 5th most active poster on that noticeboard. ජපස (jps) is the most active. Notice how they both rush here so quickly. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a "watchlist". (We also have a special alerting service[1] - recommended!)
talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Andrew Davidson seems to be implying that something improper has happened here, I'd like him to spell his accusation out clearly, please. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of thing are you referring to by 'things have moved on'? Things like we have the unsocial media nowadays and universities stop people talking whose views offend a lot of students?
Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In my experience, NPOV and sourcing standards are taken more seriously.
talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Give an example where you think that is in the least relevant to this discussion.
Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and
talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That sounds to me to be pretty much exactly what I was saying but you denied. Content by consensus rather than notability.
Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I "denied" nothing. The mighty tide of consensus (i.e. general agreement based on the
talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either. This is a wiki, after all. jps (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Moreover, the closing admin's comment in 2013 concluded by saying that the no-consensus result does not preclude future deletion nominations if the serious concerns about the structure and content of this article, including some of those mentioned above, are not addressed to the satisfaction of most editors. The tenor of the policy-informed opinions in the annual discussions about deleting this list seems to trend towards deletion, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to keep the article to seriously engage with, rather than to simply dismiss, these concerns. I would argue that, six years later, these concerns about structure and content have not been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in
Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note:
WP:FRINGE enforced at this encyclopedia. Poor baby probably should be topic banned. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs
)
ජපස . . . whatever your name is, an uncalled for cheap shot in my opinion. You should bother to look at the recent talk page under "editorializing." DMCQ and I had a long back and forth about statements the I believed unduly bolstered the position of those advocating climate change. His rationale for keeping the statements was that the counter point of view was fringe and should not be given undue weight. Now, I disagree with the conclusion that the opinions of the 80 scientists on the list are fringe (in fact, usually I find that its the theories that warn that the earth is coming to an end that are the ones properly characterized as "fringe.") Nevertheless, I respect his logic for enforcing the fringe rules, even if I disagree with his conclusion. Kolg8 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely agree with Kolg8, but in this I fully concur: that was an uncalled for cheap shot. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's not a cheap shot to insinuate bad behavior when usual crowd piled in :-(, eh keepers? Clutching your pearls over my rejoinder seems cheaply opposed to the rationale of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio at least. I don't think DMCQ is worse for the wear. jps (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed any such insinuation. But perhaps I lack your refined sensibilities. And if on that account you're worse for wear perhaps you shouldn't be in the pool. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you're missing here is that the list suffers from
    WP:PROFRINGE. There is a "KEEP!KEEP!KEEP!" !vote below that may indicate that. In that way, this situation is different from the ones you are comparing it to. jps (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The deniers (cranks or otherwise) often claim there are "LOTS of scientists who disagree", but rarely show the details. We present this list not to support the claim, but to show how deficient those details are. To borrow an earlier comment: this is not so much a lousy list, as it is a list showing how lousy is this claim of "LOTs of scientists...." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's because of where you're hanging out, or what, but as much as I appreciate your aim of hoping to show people how deficient certain details are in faulty arguments, Wikipedia is
synthetic kind. It has always been as such and I have yet to see any argument for why this is not the case. I would heartily endorse you keeping such a list at your own private website. If it became notable enough, maybe we could write a Wikipedia article on it. But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a list. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! That says it all, doesn't it? Wikipedia is meant to be
intellectually lazy. jps (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Kolg8 has inadvertently helpfully demonstrated that this article is indeed being used to serve an agenda. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note : Kolg8 is a bit of an
WP:SPA. 90% of their edits are edits to or comments about this list. (All but one of the remainder are to Peter Ridd, who is a candidate for the list.) ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ApLundell, what you say is true. 90% of my edits are to this article. Now . . . any chance you want to address the points I made above? For the record, questioning someone's motives while ignoring their argument is another example of intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your cherry-picking of IPCC esoterica is irrelevant to the question of whether this article should exist or not. Finding scientists, many of them in fields that are not climate science, who meet an arbitrary criterion is
WP:SYNTH. jps correctly identified a problem with your argument that has nothing to do with your editing record. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Speaking of arbitrary criteria, why does this page use IPCC3 as the sole representation of scientific consensus on climate change, such that disagreement with it is the criterion for inclusion on this page, rather than IPCC4 or IPCC5? Kolg8 says that the differences of IPCC5 with IPCC3 show this page is more relevant than ever. I say that the fact that there is an IPCC5 report means that maintaining a listing of those deemed to have once disagreed with IPCC3 is of less relevance than it ever was. At a minimum, shouldn't it be "List of scientists who disagreed with the 2001 scientific consensus on global warming"? Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, yes, that too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely one of the complaints I have about this list: statements of denial (or merely points of criticism) are strongly time-dependent (AR-dependent) as the evidence for GW/CC matured, so they really should be dated. But that is about improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After the last rounds of no consensus for deletion, I tried for years (go ahead, sift through the archives) in good faith to try to fix the problems with this list to no avail. I have come to the conclusion it is unfixable. The design of the list is intentionally to abrogate many of the most straightforward rules of this website. jps (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is there any real reason to think it's at high risk of re-creation? People keep bringing up the 7 previous AFDs, but it's not like it was deleted and then recreated several times. We've never achieved consensus to delete. Actually it was only the 6th and 7th where there was no consensus, prior to that it was keep. (It seems from the 4th nomination to the last, we've been at no consensus, prior to that it was keep.) If anything, the 7 previous AfDs just proves there's a lot of attention and so any attempt at recreation will quickly fail unless it goes through deletion review. Further, as the previous AfDs show, this is now the 3rd title. Frankly you could easily come up with many more. So it's questionable if salt will actually significantly harm attempts at recreation. IMO the counter argument that the previous AfDs demonstrate that we need to stop AfDing this article is more reasonable. Although since the previous 2 4 were no consensus after a bunch few of keeps and it has also been a long while now, it's IMO a reasonable AfD and it's quite likely the consensus will be respected. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt -
    extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop - a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Let's take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called "fringe theories advanced for religious purposes," shall we?
Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;
Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;
Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;
Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);
Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;
Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;
Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.
I mean, all you needed to do was click on the article and skim through it. But instead, you push the narrative that they're all quacks. By the way, if you feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand, how many Nobel Prizes have you won? Kolg8 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the list spreads FUD with the UNDUE idea that it is a big deal that there are a small number of reputable scientists who have expressed doubts about global warming. What reliable secondary source says that the views of some contrarians exposes significant doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change? Articles should not mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize — I think you mean Ivar Giaever, who won the physics prize, and who is dead, and when he was alive was trivially wrong. (And I may or may not have a Nobel Prize in my back pocket, but Brian Schmidt certainly does. What does he have to say on the subject? Gee, I wonder.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies to Dr. Giaever, first for misspelling his name, and second for stating that he won the Nobel Peace Price when it was actually the Nobel Prize for Physics (which is more relevant to the issues at hand, it would seem). For what it's worth, you may owe him a bigger apology. According to the wikipedia page you cite, he's not dead yet. Kolg8 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Johnuniq, after I cited 9 exceptional scientists, you concede their status but argue that the article improperly infers "significant doubt[s]" due to the opinions of only a few reputable scientists. You shouldn't forget that one of the requirements for inclusion in the list is that the scientist has their own wikipedia page to establish notability. There are many reputable scientists that do not have a wikipedia page. To illustrate, I went to MIT's website, to the page on the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (Lindzen's department). I searched for the first 10 (alphabetically) on google, and could only find a wikipedia page for 3. Would we say those only those three are "reputable?" No, if your professor at MIT, you're a scientific rock star, wikipedia page or no wikipedia page. Kolg8 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (came here from ARS) This is a clear NPOV nightmare, since the only places outside of Wikipedia that such "lists of scientists" are maintained is advocacy groups pushing an anti-science agenda. I note that Wikipedia includes an article on the loosely-related Project Steve (for "scientists named Steve" who agree with the scientific consensus on evolution, which is not entirely unrelated to this topic), but we don't actually quote the list on that article. Since I see this popping up from time to time, I should also point out in anticipation of someone mentioning it that the fact of this being the 7th nomination is fairly immaterial, since the most recent nomination was almost six years ago and the last "keep" consensus was over eight years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list linked here appears to be a copy of this Wikipedia page. The author didn't even bother to change the citation links. Nblund talk 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and the fact this cranky blog has got editors here thinkings it is a "non-partisan and non-biased source" is probably further reason why this article should be deleted.
talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. But, a list of deniers and some sort of categorization of their positions is within what Wikipedia already does. We have an article describing denier positions, and articles about deniers that describe their positions, putting the two together is not odious. If anything it is an opportunity since notable Fringe topics require a non-Fringe perspective. -- GreenC 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
putting the two together is not odious -- but it is
WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review for a rigourous discussion of the complications and problems in defining and applying labels to opionions. "Despite recognizing that categories are a ‘fundamental device by which all members of any society constitute their social order’,115 we suggest that each attempt to label climate opinions produced thus far has been unable to accurately portray the complexity that exists, resulting in a mixture of labels which are used interchangeably and confusingly in academia, policy,the media, and across other networks." This list suffers from many of the criticisms described there. --mikeu talk 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC and I have disagreed a lot in the last two years, but (thanks in part to my having seen him engage in serious critical analysis of sources back in 2012) I never questioned his competence as an editor until I saw the above claim that electroverse.net is a "non-partisan and non-biased source". Not only is the page itself clearly partisan in its rhetoric, but the whole point of the website is pushing the view that climate is actually getting colder, not warmer -- just skim all their titles going back to July like I just did to see what I mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. is actually what I said. Apparantly you, too, can make a mistake. -- GreenC 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a long history of making mistakes, admitting to them, and either moving on or actually doing the heavy lifting to clean up whatever damage may have been caused, most recently four days ago. It is only editors trying to push an agenda who insist that I am never willing to admit that I am wrong. (I recall back in 2015 a number of editors repeatedly insisted that I had been proven wrong on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa and related discussions but that I refused to admit it because I have some psychopathic obsession with my own intellectual perfection and never making a single mistake.) That being said, I don't think it's a mistake in this case to read your initial, still-unstricken !vote, which was based on there supposedly being in existence impartial sources that agree with Wikipedia's article on this point, which still now is reliant on the blog in question, and not to reinterpret it in light of something you said you should have done later. You wrote the above well over two days ago, and still have neither carried out said striking of the source (and perhaps replacing it with I haven't been able to find any such sources, but I assume they are out there??) nor stricken your !vote itself which was based on the said source. I can understand that you have now changed your position to the (IMO weaker) one that since we have articles on climate change deniers it is maybe within our scope to have a list of them, but it still clouds the discussion to do so as you have done; if it were me (and if you really want an example I'll dig one up for you, but elsewhere, on my own time) I would strike all but the word "keep" and add "See revised rationale below." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim: At a minimum, this list should be limited exclusively to climate scientists, or those who have make a significant contribution to the field of climate science. Otherwise it's just an opinion poll among scientists from assorted fields who don't necessarily possess any expertise on the climate. For example, you don't typically query biologists about their opinion on theories of cosmic inflation because it's not in their field. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but there was one well-known instance of the converse, where an astronomer was regularly quoted for his contrarian opinion on the authenticity of an early bird(ish) fossil, particularly by the Answers in Genesis crowd. But then that is exactly the point, isn't it? It is all rather POINTy (and pointless) to collect the opinions of those with no expertise. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With apologies to people who have been conned into believing that the WP climate area is sound ... Who are we kidding here? This is an important, long standing article that gives a tiny sliver of balance to grotesquely POV, essentially permanently vandalized, articles on Climate -- too many to list, but this gives an idea of the breathtaking scope: Was Four Legs good, Two legs bad -- Consensus is a suspect argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_consensus&diff=2119801&oldid=2113861), changed to Four Legs good, Two legs better -- Consensus is something of a gold standard and the Catastrophic Climate Change narrative stands on a par with "the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science." [Montague apropos of Evolution] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus). The first person making that flip was described as "The Climate Doctor" in Canada's National Post [copy here: https://www.thegwpf.com/lawrence-solomon-wikipedias-climate-doctor/] There is relentless pressure on anything that could conceivably touch on the CAGW narrative to make the picture conform to the strong opinions of people wedded body and soul to the quasi-religious CAGW narrative. Maybe people voting to delete are 'deletionists' and are honestly trying to improve things, but deleting this particular article would be wrong on its face and akin to vandalism. It does not matter how many or what percentage of people are willing to do something wrong. It does not make it right. Consensus on deletion should not be able to override the extreme value of this article. AFAIK, it is the only page on Wikipedia out of the thousands of pages touching on climate that brings some tiny bit of balance to the Catastrophic Climate Narrative and its accompanying mean spirited culture of name-calling, reputation smearing, and censoring anybody who dares to speak against the Religious Catastrophic Climate Change Orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't intend it this way, but what you are arguing for, 'there has to be a page that gives a different viewpoint than all of the other pages on the topic', is pretty much the exact description of a POV
WP:CONTENTFORK, and "[a]ll POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia,. . . ." Nonetheless, this list isn't up for deletion because of the topic, per se. It is unencyclopedic because it is taking a diverse group of scientists with a range of expertise and a plethora of individual positions and lumping them into arbitrary and artificial editor-defined categories that do not do justice to their nuanced views, and is failing to take the dynamic nature of scientific conclusions into account by using dated quotes and comparing them to a document written almost 20 years ago under the guise of reflecting the current scientific consensus. 'Fix the page, don't delete it' some would say, but it is virtually impossible to present the material this diverse in a manner that is not inherently arbitrary, misleading and pointy. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. One of the core aspects of the scientific method is that all conclusions are provisional, subject to reevaluation as new data come to light. Such novel findings often provide no change of thought, but can result in everything from minor tweaks to Saul-to-Paul shifts in perspective. That is exactly why comparing a one-time statement from 15 years ago to a 20-year old document that has been rendered obsolete by two subsequent such documents provides little value. It is comparing what a scientist once thought to what used to be the consensus.
WP:CONTENTFORK and its statements on POV are policy, not a red herring. If there are multiple noteworthy viewpoints they are to be represented across the articles on a subject, not in a ghetto or walled garden, nor do we collect lists of people who themselves have a range of different views as a catchall for the one thing they have in common, that they have said something critical of a 20-year-old report we don't like, because we personally feel the data . . . are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping). One's personal predilections about global climate policy are not really relevant to whether this page conforms with Wikipedia policy on lists. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see no reason to support science deniers, but whether it supports your views or not or makes you happy or sad is not a reason for keeping or deleting. The notability criteria are cited and it follows the policies and provides reliable information to people visiting Wikipedia and that's quite enough for my keep !vote without all the waffle and digression.
Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Agricolate, I would be delighted if the scientific method could somehow work its way into the Climate Change debate. From my point of view, a theory based on proxy data and unproven assumptions to make temperature projections that can't be tested for 110 years is in desperate need of the scientific method. But for the record, there's another word for a "provisional conclusion." It's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis isn't a fact, even if there is a supposed consensus believing in it, unless and until it is proven. Kolg8 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All conclusions in science are provisional in this manner, and nothing can be proven to the point that it is not subject to future revision. Thus, as you define it, there are no facts. Well done. Again, how does this expedition into the philosophy of reality bear on Wikipedia's policies regarding lists? It seems like your rationale is more a demand for a WP:SOAPBOX than an argument for the soundness of this particular list. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Total nonsense. But more to the point, this discussion is NOT about any theories, hypotheses, or unequivocal truths, it is about whether this list should be kept, or deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A big thank you to each and every scientist who has stood up against the chicken-little climate alarmist rubbish. The way we are going, when the world economy has been shut down without making an once of difference to the climate, people will say of Wikipedia, why did they not publish anyone prepared to stand up against this. 103.14.71.235 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — 103.14.71.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
103.14.71.235's little rant contributes so little to this discussion I am in favor of striking it, even at the loss of a "Keep". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability, see
Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability — no, they don't. The bullet-point criteria for being included in this list are not those used by the references on which the list nominally relies. They are also rigged to make the list as big as possible, by putting equal emphasis on disputing details of projections as on the fundamental facts. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's talking about that a scientist might change their mind. And of course one might just at this moment you read this, or the next person reads this. The scientists on the list in general seem very happy to have their views expounded, there's no real BLP problem. And they don't actually seem to change their minds much as far as disagreeing with the consensus is concerned - but quite often they change the grounds they do it on. And if they do change their minds they make this obvious too and generally there's enough people interested in the topic to take note. This can however be a problem in some other articles where the topic starts fading in current notability.
Dmcq (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
For this thought exercise, I imagine such a page would include, along with those actual having poor cognitive ability, also those who demonstrate occasional lapses of common sense, those who are well-educated but have critical gaps in their knowledge, who demonstrate early symptoms of age-related dementia, too ossified in their ideas to keep up with the current data, too arrogant to admit they might ever be wrong, intelligent but lacking in critical reasoning, or who simply feel a need to demonstrate their independent thought by denying some general consensus, or simply, who just 'play the fool' for attention. In other words, the same problem as with the list under discussion, a false-grouping of diverse people generated to make a point. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest before starting on a list of idiot scientists you try and find sources for notability of the list? Have there been notable lists of them? Are the lists talked about in reliable sources? If you can show good notability then I would support the creation of such a list. Also perhaps you can start something on the NPOV talk page about things that are 'inherently' POV and therefore should not be allowed on Wikipedia as currently I see nothing there about that.
Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
With regards to your thought exercise, would Barry Marshall [[1]] have been included in the list of idiot scientists? Here's what was said about him before he became a Nobel Laureate.
"His work was unconventional, not to say heretical, and in 1986, he was invited to discuss it at a gastroenterology conference in the United States. His wife came along and, while doing some sightseeing, overheard a conversation among some other gastroenterologists’ wives who happened to be sitting in front of her on a bus. “They were talking about this terrible person that they imported from Australia to speak,” Marshall told me. “You know: ‘How could they put such rubbish in the conference?’"[2] unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
  2. ^ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/09/stress-doesn-t-cause-ulcers-or-how-to-win-a-nobel-prize-in-one-easy-lesson-barry-marshall-on-being-right.html
If such a list was notable with multiple reliable sources supporting
Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sometimes
talk) 13:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Was there notable lists of jewish murderers being talked about in multiple reliable sources? If so I woud have thought there would be some thought put into the policies for dealing with a problem like that and I'd like to see how the problem was resolved. If the arguments there were relevant to this then fine, use them. If not then this is heading towards Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
(Some searching later) Aha - it was in fact
talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a current
Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems List of convicted Jewish criminals had no notability and was pure OR so not really relevant here. The main reason for delete was that it was
Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My very best wishes, List of Wikipedians who are idiots is easier to compile. "Scientist" typically requires an academic degree. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the topic have notability in reliable sources? See
Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Criteria are too unclear and dynamic. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most people above. I haven't looked at the history here to see whether the broad categories of reasons for disagreement are new, but even if they are they are still overbroad (and most likely original research in many instances), there is no requirement for a person included on this list to be speaking from a posistion of knowledge or to be speaking in reliable sources. I would not have a problem with a list based on reliable sources that explains any neuance, notes any conflicts of interest, excludes (or presents separaetly) those whose arguments have been fully debunked and notes points of agreement with consensus as well as points of disagreement. This list has none of those features. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Xoreaster and Drmies already explained this better than I could. This list jumbles together groups of people as diverse as contrarians-for-the-sake-of-it, paid coal industry shills, emeriti in another field who think they can make unsubstantiated pronouncements in this one, scientists who broadly accept the reality of climate science but have quibbles about one study or another, and perhaps even a handful who genuinely dispute the reality of climate science. BLP nightmare written to promote a biased POV. Reyk YO! 13:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are too many agendas distorting the science. Unfortunately there are people who don't want us to know that so many scientists do not buy into global warming alarmism. Global warming alarmists want us to believe that they have an almost universal consensus of scientists behind them. We must not let them hide reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.148.16 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — 207.38.148.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And if anybody was still in any doubt that this page is a POV-Magnet, this contribution says much ...
talk) 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You might feel maligned if the description was applied to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientists in the list feel maligned - quite he opposite. The list criteria are based on the citations in references 13,14 and 15 of the list, these provide the notabiity to satisfy
Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
For clarity: references 13, 14, and 15 are:
WP:LISTN. Grouping zoologists and botanists alongside serious climate scientists makes no sense for anyone with any actual interest in understanding climate science. Nblund talk 01:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Very notable bullshit as they are discussed in multiple reliable sources and so satisfy
Dmcq (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability does not confer reliability on bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Reliable sources can describe bullshit and make a topic notable. Trump and Putin and many other politicians bullshit all the time, that doesn't make what they say an unfit subject for Wikipedia - multiple reliable sources discuss what they say.
Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Funny how we keep hearing about these "reliable sources" that consider such a list as this, but nobody has actually been able to produce one (though instead we have been given some glimpses into some murky corners of the climate denial crankosphere).
talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You only have to go to the next sentence to see three reference to reliable sources talking about them.
Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. The reliable source count is zero. You can point to none.
talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Wrong. Source count is greater than zero. Proof by demonstration: 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia (except for one maybe attesting to the existence of the Heartland Institute)? jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better policy based reason than 'Nope' is needed for dismissing the references 16,17 and 18 - [2], [3], and [4]. Why exactly are they not reliable sources talking about the lists?
Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, you're waving at sources. But, checking them, there is zero RS that discussed lists such this article makes. You cannot provide even one. If I'm wrong you may easily disprove it by providing your very best source. Just one. I won't hold my breath ...
talk) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The provide the basis for notability as described in
WP:LISTN
, they make the topic notable. As it says there
"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."
The reliable sources discuss lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus.
Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Actually, I'm not. That very notable bullshit is very notable does not mean it ceases to be bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use reliable in that way when
Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, I shouldn't refer to reliability because a policy on reliability might apply - I thought that was why I was referring to reliability. And I don't know where the 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' strawman is coming from, but it isn't helpful. A bad source is a bad source, a bad list is a bad list - they are related but independent conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources in the list ahowing notability are references 16,17 and 18 listed above which discuss the lists in references 13, 14 and 15. I don't know why you stuck 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' in, it doesn't occur anywhere in the AfD. Perhaps you misread the quote from
Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There seems to be a disconnect here between people who think denialist literature can be used as a justification for this list and those who think that's outrageous (I'm in the latter camp). What I fail to understand is the arguments of the most vociferous who seem to argue out of both sides of their mouth: (1) that the existence of denialist "lists" confers notability on this Wikipedia list and (2) we can do better by using other sources other than these lists. I find this argument dizzying and it is the basis for my claim that the list is
WP:OR. That's, I believe, the main problem I have with the keep rationale. jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The justification is all the reliable sources talking about the lists, that is what makes such a list a notable topic. Please read the first paragraph at
Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That's exactly the problem, however. If a source talks about lists but then we change the content of the list, the source is no longer talking about the list. Ship of Theseus notwithstanding. jps (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/ten-years-after-climategate/
  • You'd be much better off trying to be a little less prolix. In general I think the longer the argument the further away from a policy based reason it is. The only only good reason for anything longer is explicit examples dempnstrating one's policy of guideline point.
    Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OK, I'll be less prolix (had to look that one up). Arguments that the opinions of the scientists on the page are too disparate to be included in a single article are wrong, because they all disagree with the third conclusion of IPCC 3. El Duderino . . . if you're not into the whole brevity thing. Kolg8 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Great, so we have List of scientists, many of whom lack relevant expertise, who have ever disagreed in some manner with the third tenet of a superseded almost-20-year-old report on climate change. Yeah, that's a worthy article. "I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it." I know it is not a vote, but someone on the down-side of a 2-to-1 expressed preference against their desired outcome has every self-interested reason to declare it to be a clear draw. How about we leave it to the closer to decide where consensus lies. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a much better title for the article! Let's rename it, then rename it again every few years to stay current: "more than 20-year-old report", "almost 30-year-old report" and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list is what you get when you try to pretend that science is static, and decide that disagreement with some report remains noteworthy after that report is obsolete. My title simply accurately describes a list that is too specific to be notable, but is made to appear notable by pretending its selection criteria aren't disqualifyingly specific in some senses and disqualifyingly vague in others to serve as a proxy for opinion on the overarching issue. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this list could transcend being either a fringe promotion platform; a witch-hunting register; or an amorphous mess (possibly in combination with either of the other two). Some of the strenuous argumentation, including directly above, provides a good example of some backward motivations on display here. Some parties really want these people highlighted, and if that requires constructing a page-length argument structure just to define inclusion criteria that will capture the lot, then that's what they will bloody well attempt. This encyclopedia doesn't work like that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Restricting the list only living people is a bit of problem in that some of the most notable "skeptics" have died. This leads into a key distinction (which I don't recall having been made): is the intent to list current "skeptics"? Or take a more historical view? I think we should specify dates of stated "skepticism", most recent relevant statements, retirement, and death. Also which Assessment Review they disagree with, or was current when they disagreed. Sure, some folks here will wail about synthesis, but the additional information does not reach a conclusion not supported by any source, it simply adds more information so the reader can determine the currency of a person's views.
You're right, it should be a better list. Which is not attained by deletion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS reports it. Synthesis, based off my understanding, occurs not when we have Fact A from source A followed by Face B from source B; it occurs when we use sources A & B to make Fact C. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You say "An argument could be made for all" of these points. But could you actually list the specific content which violates
WP:OR? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like
Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have given no evidence of notability of your list. Can you point to reliable sources discussing lists of individuals against the Paris Climate Accord? See
Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Dmcq: Are you serious? My version totally meets LISTN, and I don't appreciate being spoken down to like that. I included two different peer-reviewed studies in the Further reading section and the completed entries were sourced and verified from four separately reliable editorial outfits (of which two were primarily focused on the topic as a group). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I find the sandbox version wholly inadequate. It includes only space for people that were in favor of pulling out of the Paris accord, which should include people wishing to do so for political reasons without considering the science. And it includes space for those disagreeing with the Hockey Stick graph, but there is already a far better article on that in Wikipedia. However, it fails to do what this article does: it provides space for notable scientists who believe they have a scientific basis to argue against the "climate change consensus." And the inconvenient truth is that there are 80 or so scientists, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academy of Sciences, professors at prestigious universities and actual authors of IPCC reports, who meet that criteria.Kolg8 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolg8: It's an early and incomplete draft article I made in less than an hour. It's rather incomplete, but even still my preferred method of organization is to subdivide the list based off individual actions taken by the scientists. I also don't think the list is as extensive as you make it out to be. My bar to entry is higher than most in that I am only interested in scientists who do not believe in the current consensus that man-made carbon emissions are the cause for climate change. You made a nice pun though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Black Kite sums it up well. I don't see how this isn't an arbitrary snthesis, or what its notability is as a standalone list. I also agree that, given the multiple nominations, it should be salted as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's claim that the topic doesn't pass
    WP:CCC. As this is a sensitive topic, subject to arbcom sanctions, we should not take intemperate action contrary to the evidence and our policies. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. Boykoff, Maxwell (2009). "Ch. 39: Carbonundrums: The Role of the Media: Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians". In Schneider, Stephen H.; Rosencranz, Armin; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; et al. (eds.). Climate change science and policy. Island Press. p. 401.
    ISBN 978-1-59726-567-6
    .
  2. Fleming, James Rodger (2005). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford University Press.
    ISBN 978-0-19-518973-5
    .
  3. Oreskes, Naomi;
    ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4
    .
  4. Solomon, Lawrence (2010).
    ISBN 978-0-9800763-7-0
    .
  5. Powell, James Lawrence (2011). "The Scientist Deniers". The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press.
    ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6
    .
  6. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists". In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosber, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 151.
    ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0
    .
  • The list is clearly not random. All the entries are notable people and their inclusion is backed up a clear rationale and sourcing which has been extensively detailed and debated by numerous editors – the talk page has 39 pages of archive. Consider, for example, the first entry – Garth Paltridge. He is a respectable scientist and has published a book specifically about climate change and the extent to which there is or isn't a credible consensus. Notice that his page is not in a relevant category and, even if it were, there would be no in-line citation supporting it as there's no facility for this. It's the category system which is semi-random, unverified junk. The list is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slippery slope is a logic fallacy, no one is proposing those. For list criteria, absolutely this is what we do as editors, every list has criteria for inclusion, often invented by Wikipedia editors for practical reasons, contrary to popular believe there is a great deal of editorial descision making on Wikipedia but that doesn't make it OR. The topic has to be supportable in reliable sources and this has been done in Andrew's sources which demonstrate reliable sources often list notable deniers. -- GreenC 15:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN explains that "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other ... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists" In this case, because the material is sensitive, lists are better than categories because the entries can be explained, qualified and verified with in-line citations, as is done in this case. I can see no benefit in using categories exclusively and the nay-sayers do not provide any rationale for doing so. If you inspect the talk page for the equivalent category, you can see how poorly maintained it is. There's hardly any discussion and it seems to be quite half-baked. It appears that no effort has been put into the category while the list has had 761 editors since it was created 14 years ago and its talk page has had 711 editors too. The list is where all the effort has gone while the category has been comparatively neglected. Andrew D. (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This section of indents relates to my !vote and so it is appropriate for me to respond to points and challenges which are made to it. I have rebutted the objections made and so need to make it clear that my !vote stands. If one doesn't do this, I find that closers sometimes suppose that the objections are accepted – see here for a fresh example. So, let's be quite clear about the status of my !vote. I have presented good evidence and policy-based argument and have rebutted the various counter-arguments. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nusan Porter

Jack Nusan Porter (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 indications of how this person meets

WP:NACADEMIC. While that notability policy includes ...has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as a criteria, but I'm not convinced that an award from the American Sociological Association qualifies as such. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note - I'm fine with ending this early as SNOWKEEP (or "nomination withdrawn", if that's more appropriate, as the keep arguments have convinced me that there is sufficient evidence of notability here). OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be withdrawn in its current state unless François Robere also changes his opinion, but snow is still possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it kosher to reach out to François Robere to see what he thinks about this? Omanlured (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, as long as the notification is neutral, on the lines of "would you like to take another look now" rather than "please change your opinion".
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not entirely convinced. I've had hard AfDs on scholars that have a much higher citation count, but the journal work probably qualifies, as David notes. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, thanks for taking the circle back on this. I think this will probably end up being closed as 'keep' anyway due to the factors that you and David Eppstein noted. Omanlured (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kimura

Gary Kimura (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)

Associate professor, no sources to indicate how he meets

WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (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 Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect". Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oprah Effect

The Oprah Effect (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

WP:GNG TruthGuardians (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo De Augustine

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

The artist has one "bona fide studio album" on a minor label. Half the references are simply invitations to stream or watch the material, which is marginally promotional. And the information provided is little more than the discography.

WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Samad Khan

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (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. Clear consensus by permitted !voters that there is notability shown Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tfue

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

non notable person with only few rs and all of them are unreliable. There are also no biographies and a slight content career --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133

ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete As a Nominator, Poorly written with only few reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked[reply]

I'm assuming this is the original nominator per [20] and per the comment posted on my talk page [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I might not be a Hater, but this person isnt got reliable sources or anything besides playing fortnite. Same to the other streamer that got also nominated. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment this nominating for deletion is Suspicious. An Ip has nominated and another Ip voted "Delete". Subject is notable as a Youtuber and has 5.7 million followers on Instagram. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC) :An Ip already admitted that he is a nominator. Having many subscribers and followers doesn't make the topic notable, it depends on the coverage. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: Every IP or new user in this discussion so far (and that is everyone who has !voted to delete) is either an open proxy, or a specific banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Verge article, he is Twitch's most followed active channel. Pbrks (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No unblocked good faith editor has requested deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimTheTatman

TimTheTatman (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)

few rs and lots of unreliable sources, which the topic is not notable. the template has been placed for a long time and no improvements yet. --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133.

ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete As a Nominator, just a loads of unreliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked single purpose account[reply]

*Weak Delete. It contains few good sources, but still fails notability perhaps. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan

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

Fails

WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find sources sufficient to demonstrate this institution exists. Searches reveal a National Institute of Computer Sciences, a National Academy of Computer Sciences, et al. but all references to a "National Computer Sciences Academy" appear to be mirrors or non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Shmenge Brothers

The Shmenge Brothers (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)

So, what makes these fictional characters notable? Sure, members of my generation and those younger who haven’t heard of these two characters knows who John Candy was from movies and a Saturday morning cartoon and Eugene Levy from movies and as Johnny Rose in Schitt’s Creek, but these two characters they played on SCTV in the 1980s still have to pass

WP:JUNK. Pahiy (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Public Secondary School

AfDs for this article:
Ali Public Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Ridge, Arizona

Autumn Ridge, Arizona (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 just a non-notable neighborhood within Phoenix, Arizona. Does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources," necessary to meet

WP:GNG MB 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep meets

WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

What makes you think this is legally recognized? MB 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my note below, MB.Onel5969 TT me 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The verbiage in Geoland refers to "legally recognized" populated places, not "officially recognized". Being mentioned by the USGS in a directory of all place names in the country does not confer "legal status". This is just a neighborhood (actually just a housing development named by the original builder), one of thousands in the city that are similarly non-notable. The nature of this "populated place" clearly fits within the second bullet of Geoland - "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments". A further note is that this "name" got picked up by the GNIS only because it was first listed in "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." per the citation in GNIS. Whatever this guidebook was (I can find no mention of it anywhere except that one GNIS citation) is a tenuous basis for "legal recognition" MB 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being recognized by the federal government meets
WP:GEOLAND
.11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should definitely not be added to the article as it is machine-generated gibberish. Most neighborhoods in the greater Phoenix area are built over a few years by one developer. Autumn Ridge is NOT unique at all. MB 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NeighborhoodScout also appears only to auto-generate statistics from certain census tracts and isn't an
WP:RS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Coolabahapple, NS uses census tables to automatically generate pages for each of the 74,134 census tracts in the country, in this case Census Tract 618100. GEOLAND specifically says "One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." It also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." This census tract is NOT the same as Autumn Ridge. Where are the sources about the subdivision itself that are written by humans? Reywas92Talk 03:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:MB's nomination and sensible responses, esp. including that GNIS mention ("mention by the federal government") absolutely does NOT establish a legal entity. It is apparently just a housing development sometimes termed a neighborhood by random realtors. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that point, the GNIS entry literally states that Autumn Ridge is "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. (emphasis added).
wp:GNG is met about an unofficial area that overlaps official ones, or otherwise does not coincide with any legal entity, then fine, we can cover it. But not any and every housing development or mini-neighborhood or maxi-neighborhood name that is coined by random people. We don't want to cover an area entirely within legal/known larger populated places, which has meaning only the eyes of a realtor trying to make an area sound good, and wanting it to be new and distinctive perhaps so they can say they are the only realtor supposedly specializing in that area, in order to try to drum up business for themselves. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I looked up this subdivision in the Maricopa County GIS and found a 1982 aerial photo with four homes built. This matches the time-frame of the 1983 advertisement above. The plat information says this is a subdivision of 97 lots/homes. This is in Phoenix (although the mailing address is Glendale). I couldn't find a historical boundary map to show it was county land at the time, but I think SportingFlyer is correct that it was unincorporated and later annexed into (Phoenix). I also found that there is also an Autumn Ridge-2 subdivision just down the street in Glendale with 220 lots. MB 03:43, 17 November 2019 (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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari (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)

Most probably a product of

WP:COI
, an article about just another TV show that exists.

I am aware a few of the editors would cite

reliable sources
is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.

The TV show in discussion hasnt been reviewed by any well known/notable critic. It hasnt won any awards. It hasnt received

significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage I could find is from press releases, noticeable paid articles, primary sources, and gossip/telly sites. Nothing in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas (political strategist)

John Thomas (political strategist) (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)

Article about a political pundit, who has been interviewed for opinions a few times but doesn't seem to have anyone actually taken an interest in him enough to meet our threshold for inclusion as per

WP:GNG. The original article was a redirect to John Addison Thomas I have no opposition to it being reverted back to that. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworld Resort

AfDs for this article:
Dreamworld Resort (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)

previously deleted article, sources provided do not address topic in detail, merely mention it as being host of some wrestling matches. Much of text is lifted from organisations website (dreamworld.pk) Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Yandex Maps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex.Map editor

Yandex.Map editor (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 website exists, but what makes it notable? While input from a Russian-speaking editor would be nice, this needs to pass

Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and neither the sources in the article nor the ones I can see seems to be go beyond primary/press releases. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:19, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googlepedia

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

Lacks significant coverage. Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:18, 12 November 2019 (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 that sufficient sourcing exists to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Divorce

The Divorce (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 group. Fails

WP:MUSICBIO. The band name makes it difficult to find sources, but the AllMusic refs are all I could find as well. Any charting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:17, 12 November 2019 (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. – sgeureka t•c 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roadbuster

Roadbuster (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 fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE
is needed to judge consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. Redirect to a related Transformers page, there's not enough non-action figure description to warrant a page specifically for Roadbuster. --Hog Farm (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Taking a look at the sources: The first by "Phillip M. Gervais" leads to a fan forum which does not appear to be vetted, the second source seems more reliable although I can find no in depth detail about the author [52], the third source by "Mark Bellomo" is reliable, the 4th source is a patent (unrelated?), sources 5, 7, and 8 link to the same fan forum as source 1, and source 6 leads to a toy website. If anything I would merge the info cited by Mark Bellomo somewhere and toss the rest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2019 (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. Consensus that insufficient sources (that are both reliable & independent) exist to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos Dimadis

Thanos Dimadis (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)

It seems that it does not meet

WP:GNG. Most sources are brief biographies from RS that give some bites of info on the author of an article. What is needed for an article to meet GNG are the article of RS to discuss the life, career or achievement of the a person. Cinadon36 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hideous Records

Hideous Records (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 am unable to locate any

HighKing++ 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cooltempo Records

Cooltempo Records (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 am unable to locate any

HighKing++ 13:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 12 November 2019 (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. Agreement that neither NPOL or NSPORTS is met as both are student positions Nosebagbear (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Lamba

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

Fails

WP:NPOL as a student politician. As for the "international hockey player" part, he has not played professionally or for his national team and has only played on for the University of Dehli. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (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) Störm (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal (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)

talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems like a institution that is organized and celebrated its 50th anniversary. Notice coverage in a reliable source like the Hindu. Lot of ccoverage on Bhatkallys.com which appears to be a polished portal covering local and regional news. Coverage on Daijiworld as well of an internationl event they ran. This is one of many articles. This was pointed out by Utopes too. Regional Karnataka always has challenges in getting coverage in what we consider mainstream newspapers. As an editor who also covers Karnataka topics, I often fall back on portals like Daijiworld to look for coverage on topics related to regional Karnataka. So in summary my take is Keep! Arunram (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 12:27, 12 November 2019 (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 Doctor Psycho. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Wonder (DC Comics)

Captain Wonder (DC Comics) (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 fictional character. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon (Wildstorm)

Cannon (Wildstorm) (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2019 (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 Wonder Woman enemies#Other recurring antagonists. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Conquest

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapoor Watch Company

Kapoor Watch Company (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 sourcing that demonstrates significant coverage. Can't find any significant coverage myself, and doubt it exists for a watch retailer. ~~

- talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

2019 Tell Rifaat clashes

2019 Tell Rifaat clashes (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)

Very minor/insignificant clash rather than a battle, and a part of Operation Olive Branch. Recommend that it be merged and later deleted. KasimMejia (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The deletion reason (and discussion) seems to be whether it's a legitimate content fork
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/Merge This was a small clash as part of the larger

WP:CONTENTFORK. KasimMejia (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two re-lists, there was no consensus to Delete, and a leaning to Keep; although a concern about the weakness of RS. No prejudice to a future re-list

(non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kid Buu (rapper)

AfDs for this article:
Kid Buu (rapper) (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)

Nothing seems to have changed since the last

WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this atrocity. There is no notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is quite a well known person. There are literally 5 pages of articles on google news about him [60]. I imagine atleast 3-4 of the like 80 articles on him would be eligible to let him pass
    WP:GNG. This isn't some unknown artist, this is a rapper who regularly gets millions of hits on his stuff and used to date a Kardashian. Weak because I didn't do any digging into articles. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@AlessandroTiandelli333: Being "well known" has nothing to do with Notability and can you please back your vote by providing the sources that make him pass GNG. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that is leaning to Keep since first re-list; try one more re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Arvinder

AfDs for this article:
Erik Arvinder (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)

UPE from indeffed editor. Non

bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I couldn't be bothered to reinvestigate since I just did so this about 5 months ago. The second AfD gave me the
    WP:NOTAGAIN feeling. This time I put the article on the ARS list in hopes that someone there could find something more. I am sorry that you are bothered by that. I hope that the diligence of Dream Focus can allay your suspicions about canvassing. DF was not involved in the last AfD you placed on this article, and as such they did their own checking. Perhaps I will work on the article a bit more. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Keep - Arvinder is a perennial journeyman and sideman, and most of his notice is in relation to the people he has collaborated with, but the other voters in this and the previous nomination have found some reliable sources (such as Quietus) that might justify a stub article. This one needs to be cleaned up with unreliable sources removed, but that is a different process. Also, a nominator who throws accusations at voters with whom he disagrees should deliver the same level of evidence that he demands from everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - journeyman musician, doesn't meet
    WP:GNG. Regarding canvassing. It's obvious, since not a single person who belongs to the "rescue squad" has made a meaningful contribution to the article in an effort to show notability. Rather, after posting on that page, they simply came here to !vote. That's pretty much the definition of canvassing. That being said, I would not include BabbaQ, since I don't believe they are part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Not all musicians are notable. I don't think he is composing his own music or such, he just works for orchestras/etc. No awards. No reviews of his work. No in-depth coverage. What makes him notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing is somewhat weaker than I would have preferred – true also for the sentences I've added – but to say he just works for orchestras makes it sound like what he does is less important than it is. Making an arrangement for an orchestra is a creative endeavour akin to composing. (In addition to his supporting roles for television, other musicians and so on.) /Julle (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany Audio

AfDs for this article:
Hexany Audio (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)

UPE from indeffed editor, blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Blatant Promotion for Non

User:HighKing
goes into greater details about the failings of the sourcing.
Since the last AfD Keep !voters
User:Laosilika, User:Benleg4000, User:ParinazF, User:Sora Sailor, User:OliverKianzo, User:Nubtrazolacine have all been indeffed as upe, spam/advertising only and/or sock accounts. Also also blocked is User:Mister305akamisterworldwide and User:PANGIfroth who edited/requested edits the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing++ 12:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing++ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing++ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and
HighKing++ 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I also participated in the discussion for deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) "passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions." I can circle back and reconsider after I see what other editors can find. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't only nominated because it was promotional - it needs multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP.
HighKing++ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard (unit)

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 unit of measurement probably doesn't exist. Of the three sources currently in the article, the third doesn't mention the subject, the second uses the word "standard" as an adjective while talking about something else, and the first is a book full of sloppy errors and hilarious misreadings. I did a search and can find no indication that this ever existed. Reyk YO! 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into
    Petrograd Standard which is the same thing and certainly existed as a common measure of timber in places like Britain. Petrograd is another name for St. Petersburg. It's not clear how Pittsburg comes into this and it's probably just a misprint or misreading of Petersburg. Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can you explain which information from this page you would add to
Petrograd Standard? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have expanded the article to explain the matter more fully and so have revised my !vote to that below. As the Petrograd standard was one of many such standards, any merger should be into this page, as it is more general. I find that the Pittsburgh reference is in multiple sources and so we should retain this aspect pending further investigation. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Add: note that the single source at
Petrograd Standard has only this to say on the general unit: The units of measurement are called "Standards" and there is little resemblance between the different "standards". Fittingly, what is presented here as the standard appears to be a specific one (Pittsburgh), and in that capacity is too badly sourced (as noted above). Delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC))[reply
]
Wavering... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, settling for Keep now. The "standard vs "standard hundred" issue still looks a little unclear, but that's more of a title problem, if it is one. IMO article content and sourcing are good enough for tenure now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That discusses what was used as a standard for trading certain goods. No one called a timber yard and said "I want a standard". The text refers to a standard hundred—I'm not sure what that refers to, perhaps something like a hundredweight? There is no such thing as a standard as portrayed in the article which is perpetuating a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Much as I dislike Andrew's rote recitation of policy buzzwords and the inevitable flagging-over of that little canvassing club - but the quoted text actually makes a rather good case for "standard" constituting a measurement unit (or term for such) on its own. Standard, [...] a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries - that's a separate thing, not a modifier for "hundredweight" or something like that. Later use in the same passage (The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons) seems to bear that out. I can't check the other sources, but if they show the same usage, then that would seem adequate sourcing to me. - In which case
Petrograd Standard should be merged here, as suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The
    OED confirms the usage as "A definite quantity of timber, differing in different countries" and gives examples of usage including: "A ‘Petersburgh Standard’ ... consists of 120 deals of 12 feet long by 11 inches wide and 1½ inch thick. [This = 165 cubic feet.]" (1864 Daily Telegraph); "The vessel contained about 1000 standards ... A standard was 165 cubic feet of timber." (1891 Law Times). Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I also had trouble with the title and would be open to that or maybe standard hundred (unit). I'm seeing some variation in the sizes which I don't know if they are errors or changes over time. StrayBolt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 06:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry

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

It's hard to see how a rivalry can be notable if the best source describes it with quotes such as "I wouldn't say this is a big rival game for us" or "This has developed into a rivalry now on the basis of one game, I guess" Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've cited sources from both the University of Virginia and Florida State University, confirming that it's a rivalry, as well as an independent book about college football rivalries that it is indeed one. The quote above is from one person back in 1993 giving his opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of the sources cited in the article actually has Bobby Bowden stating "You can talk about being a rival with someone, but it's not a true rivalry until both teams win a game." I bow to the great Bobby Bowden and say that if he says one game is not a rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bobby Bowden was actually saying it is a rivalry, to be fair. Both teams had won a game when he made that statement. Virginia was in fact the only conference team that had won a game against FSU at that time. George Welsh was the (Virginia) coach who said he didn't put much stock into one game (the opposite of what Bowden was saying). But I think this article is better served as focusing on the trophy than on the "rivalry" per se as the game is no longer regularly contested and was never more than a very small rivalry dreamt up by Bowden and the FSU president at the time. Omnibus (talk)
    • Again, that quote was from over 25 years ago. Things have changed since then and I'm sure his opinion has since changed. (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you show any evidence that his opinion has changed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The burden is not on me to show that his opinion changed. The point I was making is that the coach's opinion is not fact and thus should not be counted in this discussion. The fact is that both schools (ie administration and athletics) acknowledge this series as a rivalry and that I've provided proof for.
          • Ummm… yeah it is. If you're going to hold the position that an expert on college football like Bobby Bowden has changed his opinion that has been stated and published, then you need to provide some kind of evidence beyond your belief "that was 25 years ago so it might have changed."--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia does not work on opinion, it works on facts. The fact is that there is documented evidence that it's a rivalry game. What a coach, any coach, said about a rivalry at it's inception does not count as fact nor citation. You can cite that he said that at the start, but it does not disprove that it's a rivalry now. But again, my point is that his quote does not count as being evidence that it's not a rivalry. I've proven, by Wiki standards, that this game is a rivalry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a case of
    WP:NOT. Will we be creating articles about all sports rivalries? Isn't every game a rivalry in some way? It just does not seem encyclopedic to document such things. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Paul -- I don't think that is correct (that they only played twice). I'm not opining that it meets GNG, but they have played each other at least 19 times: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I say we send the article to draft until it reflects more accurately the situation. As it stands now, the article status and "reality" seem too diverse for a concrete discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG, but the article as it currently exists is a sub-stub that does not remotely capture the scope of the series. Draftifying will allow you to work on the article until it is ready for prime time. Sound ok? Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What if we turned this into an article about the trophy? The rivalry's not notable and should be deleted, the trophy might be notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another reasonable suggestion. And one that has precedent where the history of the trophy is the focus rather than the games themselves. Compare Illibuck Trophy, Little Brown Jug, Nickel Trophy, Sitting Bull Trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, so my vote is to rename (have fun with that, AfD Stats parser!) to
Jefferson–Eppes Trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 05:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with rename as the rivalry itself is not notable. The trophy may not be either, but I'd be interested to see if someone can make it work. Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The very existence of a trophy makes the trophy notable enough for Wikipedia, in other words? That doesn't seem like it could be a correct assumption, but maybe it is. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as in time at both universities I never experienced a single person who thought this was a "rivalry game" in any sense of the phrase. It's played every five or six years and the only basis for being a rivalry game is that a trophy was once made up after UVA upset FSU and finally someone (didn't matter who) had beaten the 'Noles in the ACC. After Miami joined the conference, no one has ever pretended this is a rivalry game at all... and really, no one ever did before that point either that I'm aware of. On the other hand, the trophy was made at some point though I'm not totally sure it exchanges hands or has been seen since. As per above, I also vote to rename the article to

Jefferson–Eppes Trophy and focus on those much older ties between the universities instead of trying to make a rivalry game out of a sporadically played game that has never really been a rivalry. Every single source as a "rivalry" is basically tongue-in-cheek... "although it's not a big rivalry" ... "it's a rivalry based on one game, I guess" ... and so forth. The trophy article might be a more earnest attempt at an encyclopedic article here. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak Keep I really don't love this article (it appears to be a candidate for politics-inspired vandalism and edit warring considering the apparent ongoing controversy surrounding the
    WP:GNG, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sources provided by those voting to keep the article seem to have been convincingly invalidated by the delete voters. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery Centers of America

Recovery Centers of America (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 firm. Almost all the references are local notice/PR, generally in connection with the opening of a new center. This is no longer acceptable sourcing, according to

WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Please, check the sources I listed here and tell if these sources are acceptable per
WP:NCORP. --Madhaberisl (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BizJournals contain almost exclusively press releases, and local press releases at that--including it at all is usually an admission that no RS exist, or that the contributor can't tell the difference. To prove this for yourself, read them. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, looks like it was taken from this press release published by businesswire.com the same day, but a few hours before it appeared on BizJournals. The same article was available on their official website as well, that has been removed, but one can easily see on Google. GSS 💬 07:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have become more diverse since the first re-list; try a second re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (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. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keet Dailey

Keet Dailey (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)

Amateur athlete, no substantive sources, no notable competitions or victories, likely autobiography. Guy (help!) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (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. Ignoring the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Nemer

AfDs for this article:
David Nemer (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 near-certain autobiography (created by a

WP:PROF: early career assistant professor (PhD 2015) with virtually all cited sources being affiliated or primary. The sole genuine claim to notability is one book, Favela Digital. Guy (help!) 09:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles authored by Nemer

Interviews with Nemer

Articles quoting Nemer

The citation record is not a fair metric to decide on one's notability. Although Nemer has a background in Computer Science, his academic research and publications have been in the fields of Science_and_technology_studies and Anthropology, which are part of the humanities. Humanity scholars are known to not be as highly cited as researchers from the natural and hard sciences. As for rewards and notability, Nemer has given two Keynote speeches in 2019, one in Brazil (2019 Brazilian Congress of Librarianship and Documentation), and one in Singapore (Online Falsehoods and Influence Operations Meeting). His paper on the Internet in Cuba just received an honorable mention from 2019 CSCW Computer-supported_cooperative_work: https://medium.com/acm-cscw/announcing-the-best-of-cscw-2019-177d4fe0445c

I'm not sure if this could help endorsing Nemer's notability, but his account on Twitter is verified: https://twitter.com/DavidNemer . According to Twitter: "The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic." https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-verified-accounts . --J McCal (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — J McCal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

1)Exactly how does he pass these criteria? 2) Do you have any connection with the subject that would amount to
WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

::: No connection, but in the past couple of years, the guy has given invited talks at Harvard, MIT, UC San Diego, University of Oxford, Data & Society, etc... He has written for the Guardian, HuffPost, The Intercept, and is constantly interviewed and quoted in news articles. For a humanities scholar, he is fairly well cited.. how is he not relevant or Wikipedia-relevant? He doesn't fit into the stereotypical white old male scientist. Please, just google his name and do some research. Wikisharktank (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any connection with the subject or the socks? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Likely yes, given that they have now been blocked by a checkuser. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2019 (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. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Model School, Zafarwal

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

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing the nomination.

(non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Grammar School Rawalpindi

AfDs for this article:
Grammar School Rawalpindi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (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. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 05:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz

Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz (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 appears to fail

WP:SPA, Google indicates possible COI. Guy (help!) 09:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:03, 12 November 2019 (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. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 05:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Beverage Technology

Food and Beverage Technology (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)

Can't see this having significant coverage. ~~

- talk 09:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 09:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This appears to be the same spam farm as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine. Grayfell (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2019 (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 . Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine

Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine (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)

Can't see this having significant coverage, and already been to draftspace and back already. ~~

- talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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

Widget (GUI). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Grayed out

Grayed out (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)

Just a

WP:NOUN. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katupitiya Walauwa

Katupitiya Walauwa (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 is a house in Sri Lanka. Fails GNG and

talk) 08:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:01, 12 November 2019 (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. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 05:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Committee Kunzer

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

The article lists the members of the municipal committee of a city with the population below 2K. Are these guys collectively notable? If yes, how can we make sure the article gets updated on a regular basis? Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:11, 12 November 2019 (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. It seems like the key argument for deletion offered by the delete camp is that the topic of the article is not really discussed by independent secondary sources and thus

WP:NOTINHERITED. And since in AFD policy and guideline-based arguments carry more weight, this indicates a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of boats in Arthur Ransome books


List of boats in Arthur Ransome books (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 collection of fictional minutia TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Ransome is a significant and notable prize winning children's author. He included a large number of boats in his books, several of which are actually the titles of the books in the series. They are not trivial or non-notable to anyone interested in studying Ransome as is shown by the fact they are included in books written about him and his work. Dabbler (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. The complaint about out of universe notability shows that TPH doesn't understand the topic, as Ransome's fictional boats were typically based on real boats and many of them still exist or have been recreated so you can actually sail in them. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I favour keeping this article. Major series of books; the boats are an integral part of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Foster (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The deletion request is only about a lack of sources for this page, so any justifications for deletion based on triviality or notability are irrelevant and more importantly invalid.

However, it is even more important to note that the deletion request overlooks the primary purpose of this article - namely it is a sub-article for a listing of inanimate characters that appear in a series of books. The primary type of references should be in-text links back to the relevant book articles.

An example of this may be found via the series article Swallows and Amazons series, where under the Major Characters section there is a link to a subarticle for characters in the series: List of Swallows and Amazons characters

As this article is the equivalent of the above for boat characters that appear in the series, it should be improved and linked appropriately.

In hindsight, this article should have been tagged for cleanup and improvement rather than for deletion, as it is Wikipedia's stated policy that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. --Mercurivs (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Boats are objects, not inanimate characters. Unless I'm missing some kind of implication of personification, that's a bad comparison. You also have the faulty assumption that character lists are inherently necessary article forks. That character list should be deleted as well considering all the novel articles should easily be able to handle a summary style description of their own characters. TTN (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forlong the Fat

Forlong the Fat (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 very minor character in LOTR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:12, 12 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabal Singh Bhati

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

An attempt of self-promotion. The subject is not meeting

WP:ANYBIO. Awards that the subject has received are insignificant and do not help in establishing notability. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Times

Niharika Times (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 non-notable newspaper not meeting

WP:Soapbox. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is indian newspaper registered by RNI, India government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalbhati (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (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 Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Aftab Sulehri

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

Fails

WP:GNG. The subject is yet to contest and win elections. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear My Girls

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

Unreferenced manga (mahwa). I can't find any reviews or such. No indication this series passes

WP:GNG in general. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 12 November 2019 (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. There seems to be general agreement that there are sufficient reliable, independent sources available to satisfy

WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 05:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Radagast

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

</noinclude>
Radagast (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 supporting fictional character fro Middle-Earth. There is a proposed merge, but the target article is even worse (and I've prodded it). No evidence the character received sufficient in-depth analysis to pass

WP:PLOT+media appearances. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Vouch for? Did you even read them?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read the poem in its entirety. Very nice. I had considered it good before, but I have now discounted that from counting towards GNG. Not because it is a poem, though (poetry can absolutely be a significant source)—only based on Piotrus pointing out that it was published before this particular publication became a peer-reviewed journal, and I now can't tell for sure if it is "Reliable" per GNG. I can't fathom how an editor or peer would change a poem as that would defeat the spirit of the art form, but I will keep things simple. Did I read the first paper? No, not in its entirety, I'm not ashamed to admit that, but I read enough of the paper to determine that educational institutions are willing to discuss the topic and enough for me to evaluate it against GNG. To be clear, I don't know enough about LOTR articles here to search for an appropriate merge or redirect target, so I am containing myself to the topic of deletion: yes or no, and at this point Notabilty is the only argument to delete. I treat ALLPLOT as a need to improve an article or change its focus, not to delete it (assuming Notability is met). ALLPLOT could help discount Significance in sources, though. Basically is it:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail without being a regurgitation of plot
✓Reliable - From a journal article that can be found via academic institutions, and the paper was published with editorial oversight
✓Sources (plural) - This doesn't have to do with endorsing, but there are at least two throughout this discussion
✓Independent - From an academic journal not controlled by the Tolkein estate
I interpret significant coverage as something that can be determined in as little as a paragraph (sometimes even a couple sentences), even when discussing how important or unimportant something should be treated. Let's say the Journal of Soda Pop publishes an article about 7-orange-cola calling it the most overrated and forgettable soda in the world, going on to explain that it is too sticky, too fruity, the pH is off, and there's too much carbonation over one page. That just counted as one source to justify notability, and only one more is needed to satisfy GNG, even if the other is just as diminutive to the subject. Again, I'm only commenting on whether material is justified as having a spot in Wikipedia, not where it should be. I'll abstain from a merge discussion as proper sorting is more difficult than throwing away or keeping, and should be carried out by those more knowledgeable than me. I personally would love to be able to look up anything, minor or major, but I'll follow the guidelines that are there. -2pou (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou: Thank you for your detailed response. As I said, I think that article is not best, since the coverage of Radagast is rather short, but more to the point, it is pretty much limited to quoting from another source, which I have traced to a book: [72]. Unfortunately, GB has no preview, and I can't find this book on Library Genesis, so I can't investigate if it contains a more in-depth analysis than what is quoted in that article. And so far what we have is borderline. But much better than we started. If this is kept, which is possible, we at least have sufficient sources to add a few sentences to the reception. A win in either case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that a fan has written a poem about Radagast means we need an article. You'll always have the poem.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I don't think the sources provided can actually build an article. It's probably enough to avoid deletion, but it should be relegated to some minor list. TTN (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: regarding the sources, "Enigma" says, "The wizard Radagast the Brown plays a minor role in The Lord of the Rings" and spends some time discussing why Radagast never appears later in the book. "Radagast in Middle-Earth" is a poem. The source related to The Forest and the City is a review, not an introduction. It says that claims of Radagast's importance are "overstated". I don't think citing sources like that proves anything. LOTR is a popular work, and even a minor character will be written about, but that no reason to give him a Wikipedia article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed above. Danke. -2pou (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scholars have studied him, he was featured in various notable media to different degrees, and all those talking about the films always mention him, he a significant character. He seems as notable as a fictional character can be. Too much information to be merged over to another article. Dream Focus 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think old Radagast deserves a little article, esp. compared to what we see in other articles. Above, someone invokes "Tolkien for Dummies"--that's not the kind of thing that's really helpful, and neither is Mythlore, which can explain things but can hardly add to notability since Tolkien is their thing, or one of their things. But there are other sources, even though not that many--this book is a recent academic publication, and the two pages on Radagast certainly count as in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two pages, only two pages, discussing an unrelated TV show!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about the notability of Radagast as a fictional character, not about his notability in Middle Earth.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's really isn't much to say about him, is there?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why do you think Radagast, who is only mentioned in LOTR around the Council of Elrond and is never mentioned again is a "major character"? How would you define a minor character?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2019 (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 Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards). ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (Middle-earth)

Wizard (Middle-earth) (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)

What makes the concept of Middle-earth wizard encyclopedic? Seems to fail

WP:PRIMARY, a de facto fancruft essay "Wizards of Middle Earth". Not sure if there is any good merge target. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no reason to have this article. The main wizards in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit,
    Blue Wizards are even less notable. They don't appear in the two major works at all. Their "existence" has been gleaned from draft manuscripts published long after Tolkien's death. Overall, the authorities cited by this article have a wraith-like quality, being works attributed to Tolkien without his consent and after he was dead. These articles should be dropped into the fires of Mount Doom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - this is a substantial article with references. Vorbee (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly original research. A wizard is a wizard, that can be explained on the pages of the notable wizards of the series and doesn't require a separate crufty page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Hard to decifer if it's notable as a concept in and of itself. It's too generic to find sources, I thought maybe searching for "Istari" would be more fruitful, but it doesn't seem to be (or at least from what I have access to).
    Potential: "Nycz, D. (2013). The Forest and the City: The Dichotomy of Tolkien's Istari. Tolkien: The Forest and the City, 67-75." (which would have to be borrowed from a library). A review of the book has an overview of her essay here, and that provides notability itself (as a single source), but more would need to be definitively found. Maybe I can request a copy... -2pou (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's a review, not an introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias. Fixed. -2pou (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per

WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wang Yi-ta

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. Andrew Base (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men of Dunharrow

Dead Men of Dunharrow (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)

Pretty minor

WP:NFICTION. No in-depth coverage, only plot-like summary of their fictional origins/appearance in books and related media. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 12 November 2019 (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 Paul Martin Pearson. The argument to redirect is more compelling than keeping a standalone article on this topic. I'm not seeing any agreement that the available sources are enough to provide sufficient content on which to base a full article on this event. This doesn't mean that the event still can't be covered elsewhere. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum

AfDs for this article:
1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum (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 page seems to have no english sources and no google searching could find any reliable sources that pertained to this article, therefore I believe that it fails to reach any type of notability guidelines.Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm - The only source is that German database, and we'd certainly want more than that to keep. This needs looking into more closely - the database as it's source lists "William W. Boyer, America's Virgin Islands , Durham 1983, pp. 149-152" - has anyone had a chance to read this? FOARP (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @FOARP: Although I have only been able to carry out a limited search of the book, the figure of 7,366 votes (the number cast against the proposal) shows up on page 152 (as mentioned by the database). The database is a reliable source and it (and its author Beat Müller) is regularly cited in academic works.[90][91] Number 57 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hazy on this. We know that the figure is mentioned there, but we don't know anything else about it. Anyway, at least two supporting references are needed for a
WP:GNG pass - thus far only one is available. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It also says that it was an inofficial referendum, so it was more of a poll than a referendum, if I understand correctly. So I don't think it meets notability if its only mentioned in one database, citing one book. Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That (it being an unofficial poll) is the one thing that I think is a proper argument for deletion. The lack of sources is more likely due to us not having access to contemporary media coverage. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paul Martin Pearson? All the content is already there. Even if this weren't a "private referendum", not every item on the ballot is automatically notable. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I had just typed something like Reywas92 just said when my computer crashed. This was an opinion poll, not a proper vote, and a turnout of 7,500 out of a population of 100,000 or so is pretty abysmal. Nothing happened as a result; Pearson remained in office, and as far as anyone knows, the policy remained in place. The vote was entirely ignored. In the absence of any sources discussing its significance, there is no grounds for an article. SpinningSpark 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spinningspark: In 1933 the islands' population was only 23,000. In a referendum fifteen years later there were only 5,509 registered voters and only 1,500 bothered to vote. The 7,500 turnout wasn't beaten until a referendum in 1970, so was actually pretty significant. Number 57 21:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't change the fact that there is no significant coverage in sources. My reoommendation stands. SpinningSpark 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that it did, just correcting the assertion that the turnout was abysmal, when in fact it was around a third of the population. If anyone has access to contemporary sources, that would help. Unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find decent sources for Caribbean islands from this period and there are several elections from the 1920s and 1930s that currently have no article because I have been unable to access historical newspapers for the region (yet). If this was held now I have no doubt that would be sufficient coverage for an article. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:GNG fail. Therefore let's note that the referendum took place on the page of the governor and leave it at that. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep As stated by Number 57, this does appear to be a highly notable event. Just because the source itself isn't in English doesn't mean that it's not notable. SuperChris (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think this is highly notable? IMO its not a government referendum, but one held by a civic betterment association, which led to zero effects on the governor, he wasn't even replaced until two years and a Senate investigation later. Alex the Nerd (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am ambivalent about these unofficial referendums, but in this case I think the fact that around a third of the entire population voted probably makes it notable, as turnout is akin to that of a formal referendum (in fact, per the stats above it was the highest turnout in the islands until 1970). Number 57 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Mobility Agenda

New Mobility Agenda (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; previously deleted via WP:PROD and restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2019 (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 withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Industrial blockchain

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

This article is not needed. Business applications of blockchains are already mentioned in

Cyber-physical systems rather than anything about how blockhains are used in the industry or on an industrial scale. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has been created to motivate researchers for contributing to industrial applications of blockchain technology and more precisely focus on smart manufacturing. Although there is another page talking about blockchain in general, but smart manufacturing (or cyber-physical-system) is itself a very big industry with its own challenges and limitations. Recently GE, IBM, Mazak, P&G, etc have shown a huge interest in using blockchain in their manufacturing progress towards industry 4.0. This page would serve as a guideline that gradually would be completed and used for industrial people with the main focus on their specific needs rather than some shallow discussion on some other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Azamfar (talk • contribs)
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. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 05:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank F. Karasti

Frank F. Karasti (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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Is simply a grandson's tribute to his grandfather. Fails as per

WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Karasti is also mentioned and quoted here in Cavie umane: L'America e l'enrgia nucleare: cronaca di un disastro annunciato (apparently a translation of an English work); in twicerisensun.com here; and in Killing our own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation here. Given those, I am striking my opinion above. But if this article is to be kept, it must be based on such third-party sources, without copying.
Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:17, 12 November 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salamina Dromolaxias

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

The team fails

WP:FOOTYN as they didn't play in the national cup for Cyprus with their two appearances in the fourth division in 1991 and 1997 being their only claim to existing. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see from Cypriot Cup that that might be the case. If deleted, then, Salamina Dromolaxias should be unlinked. Geschichte (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2019 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Sage

Rosemary Sage (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 found no significant coverage per

WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like she is a big deal
WP:AUTHOR and professor. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:04, 12 November 2019 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SoftStack Factory

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. (Never mind the question of what a "bootcamp" is supposed to be anyway in this context [apart from marketing buzzword glurge].) Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_November_12&oldid=1142613250"