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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2012[edit]

Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2012 (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)

Its not true at all according to RS sources (as opposed to the individual's website (source 1)). Election was in 2011 and 2013 [1]. Nor is it in the news. ([2][3][4]. Even the original cited website doesnt give a date. More sources: date passed without election, PREVOUSLY postponed, canceled and vague. Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename IFES have it down as tentative for May 2012. Should probably be renamed Next Mauritanian parliamentary election though as there is no set date yet. Number 57 12:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly, keep. There's sources for the election date, even though information is a bit hazy. Blame the government. —Nightstallion 19:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number57 seems to hae come up with a good idea again..though weneed more sources because of the haziness.Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Anderson[edit]

Lloyd Anderson (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)

PROD contested by Jimbo online (talk · contribs) with the explanation of "Played for Brentford in the FA Cup". However, this appearance came against Barrow of the Conference National, which is not a fully professional league. As such, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played in a fully-pro competition. GiantSnowman 16:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - didn't realise this was the case, I thought if players played in the FA Cup for a fully-pro team against a semi-pro team it was notable. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 13:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--sparkl_!sm ^hey! 10:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway)[edit]

Hugezhuang Line (Beijing Subway) (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 can't find any references to this line. None whatsoever. In English or Chinese. Nothing. Also, I went to Tongzhoubeiyuan the other day, and I didn't see anything going on. Azylber (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this planned line per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No planned line should have an article, unless it has generated some significant controversy or such. But then the article should be about the controversy, not the line. Colipon+(Talk) 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any references to this line. None whatsoever. In English or Chinese. Nothing. Also, I went to Tongzhoubeiyuan the other day, and I didn't see anything going on.Azylber (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualicum Flight Center[edit]

Qualicum Flight Center (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 does not appear to pass the notability guidelines, no reliable sources, no news hits. Also, reads a bit like an advertisement, and there are some close paraphrasing issues between it and [5]. Monty₈₄₅ 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD category A7 - no assertion of importance or significance - and probably G11 as well. This is just one of thousands of itty-bitty flying schools around the world flying a few ityy-bitty aircraft, in this case four Cessnas built in the 1970s. There have been other articles about flying schools like this; they don't survive the deletion discussions. YSSYguy (talk)
• Delete for a lack of notability, claimed or sourced. Not quite speedy material, but awfully close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 USC student shootings[edit]

2012 USC student shootings (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)

Uncertain of notability. While I am certain the event is of great significance to those affected, I don't know if it is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Relevent guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts. RA (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I've moved the article to 2012 USC student shootings for obvious reasons. Hevesli (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops! I speedied the previous title as G6. Thanks, --RA (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I haven't seen any coverage at all. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I have improved the references at the article. But all the references I could find were written within a day or two of the event; there has not been lasting coverage as required for a Wikipedia article. BTW if the article is to be kept I object to the title. This is not a story about USC; it did not happen on campus. Rather, it was an off-campus murder of two people who happened to be USC students. It did receive a little more than the usual coverage because of the fact that the students were both from mainland China. Otherwise, a depressingly commonplace event. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Of the 36 participants in this discussion, 23 !voted for deletion, which is a reasonable 64%, and a number of those reconfirmed their vote after reading through the ongoing discussion, while one of those !voting to keep, offered little rationale – “I think the page should be kept” The arguments for and against deletion focused on the quantity and quality of the coverage in sources. John J. Bulten (JJB) offered an impressive list of sources; however, as pointed out, these did not deal with the topic with the significant detail required in the GNG. Claims that the topic meant with criteria in WP:Prof are rigorously challenged, and the strongest claim, that he is an “elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society”, is disputed, though not completely dismissed. The strongest argument for keeping, as put forward by DGG, is that under WP:AUTHOR he has some notability as he has created a well known work that has been the subject of multiple reviews. However this is disputed as the main work reviewed was assembled rather than created by the topic. This AfD discussion was initially closed as No consensus then undone as the original closer felt unable to put forward a closing rationale, and discussion continued on the article talkpage, which has been consulted. Overall there is significant enough consensus that notability has not been established for this topic, and deletion is the appropriate option. However, I will userfy the material on request to allow work to continue until notability can be established. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Ashton[edit]

John F. Ashton (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)

Unable to find secondary sources to demonstrate his notability as a BLP here. Most sources of his degrees, honors and professional positions are self-claims like the autobiographical blurbs in books he's authored. Cite to Richard Dawkins only mentions Ashton's name in passing, as the individual who compiled the book containing an article written by the individual (Kurt Wise) Dawkins is critiquing. The two subject areas which Ashton appears to have published are rife with pseudoscience (creationism and purported health claims attributable to foods/vitamins/minerals) promoted with a PhD, and his PhD doesn't appear to be in science or medicine. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29. Snotbot  t • c »  21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (talk page stalker). Seems to pass GNG, BASIC, and AUTHOR; significant collective body of work in multiple reviews. The SPS can be cleaned up. Will see what a quick source search turns up. JJB 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Should be an easy call for passing ACADEMIC as well: this search yields 9 journal articles and 23 people citing him. JJB 22:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• That citation count falls well short of the figures normally accepted as evidence of passing WP:PROF criterion 1, and can you identify those multiple reviews? I can find none either cited in the article or from my own searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:PROF #3 as a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find no evidence that RACI fellowship is selective enough to satisfy that criterion - it is not even the highest grade of membership of the society, which is "Chartered Fellow".[6] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citations (including those of his religious publications) in Google Scholar are 35, 34, 32, 12, 11, 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 2... with an h-index of 6. This is not remotely enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in the highly cited field of life sciences. I note that Ashton sometimes credits himself with a PhD in the author lists of the science papers he publishes. This is strictly correct, but his PhD is in theology, not science. There is a claim that he was elected a member of RACI in 1992. I have been unable to verify this as it is behind a pay-wall but, if it is correct, it is strange because he only achieved a publication record after that time. As noted above he does not hold the highest rank in that society and, anyway, it is questionable if RACI is a prominent enough society to give an automatic pass of WP:Prof#C3. I conclude that he fails all of WP:Prof. The only possibility of notability may be found through WP:Author in the topic of fringe religion. However, even here, his GS cites are miniscule many being to a book he has edited. Most of the sources that an enthusiastic editor has been adding to the article are so marginal as to be practically worthless. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Xxanthippe's careful dissection says it all. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The case for WP:PROF is weak, as discussed above; the case for WP:GNG is even weaker (very little about him to be found in Google news or Highbeam, and not nontrivial enough coverage to suffice). The philosophy section seems problematic in its convoluted reading of its sources, and in any case seems to be largely about the content of a book that Ashton merely edited. The strongest case I can see for him is as the author of the "chocolate a day" book — that, at least, has some hits (14 on google news, 17 in highbeam) and while these sources still don't give nontrivial coverage of Ashton himself, they at least cover one of his theories in a little depth. But I think it was too much a flash-in-the-pan and WP:BIO1E thing to form the basis of an entire biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should be kept. Mormon Man (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Keep arguments:
  • GNG is satisfied: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The accumulation of 30 sources to an article, many of them full-depth, used to be enough to pass GNG. Having 14 Google News and 17 Highbeam sources on one topic in addition used to be enough to pass GNG.
  • BASIC is satisfied: "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." See accumulation above.
  • PROF#C1 is satisfied: "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". Nor did Xx link the citation count she did. This guideline doesn't say "h-index of 6 is not remotely enough", perhaps you could edit it if it should. (ADD: This link gives me an h-index of 10, which is remotely enough. JJB 13:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC))
  • PROF#C3 is satisfied given the data below: "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society ... or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". Per RACI, Chartered Fellow and Fellow are identical except that Chartered means 3 years chemistry experience, which Ashton perhaps never bothered to document to RACI. However there are 3 levels below FRACI and it requires "a position of eminence in the chemistry field [and] services rendered to the RACI" and is thus selective. Also our Chartered Chemist article demonstrates RACI is the AU equivalent to the UK RSC, which indicates sufficient selectivity and prestige to me. Thus, the burden of proof (showing that RACI is a major scholarly society and FRACI is a highly selective honor) is satisfied.
  • AUTHOR#C1 is satisfied: "widely cited by peers or successors".
  • AUTHOR#C2 is satisfied: "known for originating a significant new concept". Getting 50 doctorates to agree on creationism is a significant change in the debate and had not happened previously, as evolutionists admitted.
  • AUTHOR#C3 is satisfied: "significant or well-known work [subject] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Lookie there, 4 reviews of Chocolate a Day added without even trying, plus the 3 of In Six Days. How many more should I add?
• Delete arguments:
  • "Unable to find secondary sources": but there are thirty now.
  • Google Scholar "cites are miniscule" (sp): but there are many dozens.
  • SPS, pseudoscience subject-area, epistemology PhD, strange fellowhip date, secondary fellowship, problematic writing, convoluted sources: but none of those are deletion criteria.
  • No reviews: but three reviews are found so far: Dawkins (written about one chapter only), Groves (three pages analyzing entire book), and the American Scientific Affiliation. To misclassify the Dawkins review as merely a critique of an article Ashton merely compiled seems a bit odd as it's clearly a review of a book.
  • The idea that editing 50 doctoral authors is much less notable than writing one's own book: very odd to me.
  • The idea that every keep argument can be dismissed except the chocolate and that's a BIO1E: very odd to me.
• Conclusion: Usually deletionists don't tilt at several windmills at once. Here any one notability argument would settle the question, and there are at least seven potential. Usually four or five reliable sources of sufficient depth would settle the question, and there are at least thirty potential (and many more unlisted but found in passing). There are more conclusions to be drawn, but suffice for today. JJB 07:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There are too many misunderstandings and misconceptions of WP:PROF in the above argument to address them all. Suffice to say that after reading through all that, I see no reason at all to change my "delete" !vote. Does not meet any notability guideline that I know off. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  This seems to be a case that is related to creationism, with the basic argument for deletion being that the topic shouldn't be notable to the extent that the notability arises from a religious belief.  As far as whether or not the topic passes WP:GNG, 43 sources in the article indicate that it does pass WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• None of those 43 references are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is a textbook case of bombardment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" is coverage that is not "trivial".  "Trivial" coverage under WP:GNG is simply material that cannot be used to write an encyclopedia.  WP:Bombardment is an essay that does not identify the concept of a "textbook case".  The primary concern of the essay seems to be that sources can be used redundantly.  Even if every source in the article were redundant, there would still be one source left, which disproves the premise that WP:Bombardment explains that "none" of the sources are to significant coverage.  Here are a couple of quotes.  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment bad? states, "Bombardment is not necessary when the sources are identical to one another or otherwise redundant."  WP:Bombardment#When is bombardment good? states, "Since one of the purposes of references is to provide the reader information beyond what the Wikipedia article says, providing more sources of information is a good thing."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So which of those 43 references are to significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was, "43 sources in the article indicate that it does pass WP:GNG."  Yes, the evidence can be reduced by the force of reason.  But given that the evidence has not been diminished, asking for yet more evidence is a form of logical fallacy—I'm not sure what that is called, but Moving the goalposts#As logical fallacy seems close.  Also, I'm not interested in getting in a tete-a-tete here, so I'll probably not respond again.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three-page detailed Groves review; many other dedicated book reviews; in-journal publication with over 100 cites; 18 university research publications including 3 books; university courses citing his books as selected resources; and an accumulation of book citations. JJB 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a good miniessay. I think of this fallacy as the unwinnable "show me a rock" game, which I typically mu. I might need to repeat, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." JJB 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per the work of Xxanthippe, he doesn't meet the coverage requirements of PROF or the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaksar, can you help me understand how I have misunderstood the clear words of seven retention guidelines, none of which have been rebutted? Did you notice that the h-index is 10 not 6 and the speculation about the fellowship was corrected from RS? I would appreciate having some idea of when I can stop adding reliable sources. OTOH the best arguments do win. JJB 22:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm seeing little-to-no substantive independent coverage here. Most sources listed either (i) include Ashton himself as a (co-)author, (ii) are creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) affiliates of Ashton, (iii) are/were Ashton's employer and/or (iv) make only passing (and/or dismissive) mention of it. The sourcing for this article is really crappy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) 5 sources are SPS, appropriately (retained from before AFD; they might be deletable). (ii) I count 14 sources that could be viewed as creationist, but, even if they were fringe citations, many are independent and they are not a deletion argument. If an author is fringe, the fact that he is often cited by the fringe is used to weigh his notability and is not zeroed out. (iii) 2 sources are his university. Counting generously, that's 21, which is not "most". (different iv due to Hrafn refactor) Journal articles (8) are independent, usually peer-reviewed, even if they are his own co-labor. (v) 12 reviews of 3 different books are independent. (vi) 4 other unclassified refs are independent (Chemistry in Australia, Food Australia, Mauboussin, Baura).
  • What is more important, though, is that AFD is decided not by what's in the article but what exists as to notability. The fact has been repeatedly demonstrated that many many more sources can be brought forward in many different categories and each category establishes notability in itself. I can go on all day. If the article were actually to start discussing the science of his food discoveries in detail (what! pay sources! in an encyclopedia!), it would have spinouts galore. JJB 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    1. Many of the creationists cited are those whose testimonies appear in Ashton's book -- not independent
    2. Most of the remaining creationists probably aren't WP:RS. Denyse O'Leary certainly isn't -- not even close. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So this most certainly is "a deletion argument".
       • And I would particularly like to point out that creationists are notoriously unreliable on the qualifications and relevance of expertise of themselves and their fellow creationists -- so no I do not accept that "Ashton and White are permissible SPS for a mere roll-call". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The Chemistry in Australia and Food Australia citation appear to be a bare mentions (as is van de Weghe). Mauboussin is a bare citation (as are the Whitney, Köstenberger, & Maxfield, citations). NOT "significant coverage".
    4. The reviews of In Six Days would appear to indicate that the book, not its editor, would be a better topic for an article. The coverage of A Chocolate a Day appears to be for more light-hearted and superficial (again not "significant coverage").

    All in all, you really haven't convinced me on notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • These are not deletion arguments until you impeach all the sources at once. (ii) Would you like to take the 14 creationists to RSN? By "many" you mean Bergman, Roth, White, Whitney; the rest did not contribute, though H. Morris is related to a contributor. Even the contributors are independently published, not self-published. (iii) University research is independently reviewed and significant. (iv) We haven't scratched the surface of his food-research notability; would you like me to buy some of these articles? (v) We have never objected to light-hearted coverage of a light-hearted book as nonnotable. It's certainly not superficial; these are ordinary book reviews that each confer AUTHOR criterion 3 notability. Would you like to take all 12 reviews to NPOVN? They have a 3-week backlog. (vi) Bare mentions as to fellowship, an important bio detail, are frequently used on WP. Further, a large number of bare mentions (in addition to the other substantive mentions) are accumulative toward notability, as above.
    • It's not my job to convince you, it's your "job" (if you accept it) to defeat all seven notability criteria at once. You deleted Dawkins from the article too, not a good approach. JJB 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Creationists are promoters of WP:FRINGE views, they are therefore prima facie unreliable sources. No prior discussion of each and every one of them on WP:RSN is needed to make this point.
2. "independently published" is WP:Complete bollocks. "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." -- WP:N It is the author that needs to be independent, not merely the publisher.
3. Research coauthored by Ashton is blatantly not independent of Ashton. Nor is mere mention/citation of his papers "significant coverage".
4. The reviews of A Chocolate a Day (i) do not appear to "address the subject directly in detail" & (ii) appear to lack sufficient expertise on the subject matter to qualify as "reliable".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were an article on a holder of a fringe view, the fringe views of others are appropriate for that article and, again, contribute to notability; these are two different guidelines. Fringe authors are RS (SPS) for their own views. Feel free to adjust on this point, as you have been already. They are not zeroed out as sources. Further, most are independent of the subject (Ashton) unless you have evidence otherwise. Research conducted by Ashton is a reliable source vetted independently; it's not given to contribute to independence, only to his reliability for the claims made in journals. There are many Chocolate reviews, they address the subject in their totality, and they have typical reviewer experience; they have all the marks of book reviews used in any other article. Sorry you ended up being the one to face me off on this one. JJB 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE#Notability versus acceptance appears to take a very different view on whether the views of fringe/unreliable sources add to notability. It gives no support whatsoever for your contention. "Research conducted by Ashton" is "produced by those affiliated with the subject" so is explicitly excluded from being independent by WP:Notability itself. Kindly cease and desist making assertions directly contradicted by WP:Notability! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact what I asserted was that "it's not given to contribute to independence". I also don't see in your guideline link something that contradicts what I said, nor was it written to support my contention, which actually appears as, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." The seven criteria applied are quoted above, and in each case where independence is called for it has been shown. JJB 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• delete - This article certainly merits a fringe tag, however a brief review of the sources shows that they are overwhelmingly of an unreliable nature. Everything I checked appeared to be either self-published or published via dubious sources. I'd happily re-consider this if a keep proponent could highlight one or two sources which they feel can carry this subject's notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Hrafn listed this on FTN. As listed above, there are 7 arguments for carrying notability; reducing the discussion to a highlight would be argument by minimization. If you can wait a few minutes I'll be happy to retrace the whole argument, if that's what you're asking. JJB 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• GNG: sig cov in RS ind of subj: Groves (2.5 pages), Groves again (several grafs), Dawkins (1+ page on part of book), ASA (1 page, pro but independent).
• BASIC: subj of mult pub 2dary RS ind of each other and subj, including combination: Mauboussin, Baura, plus most of the other sources mentioned herein.
• PROF 1: several extremely highly cited schol pubs or substantial schol pubs w/sig cites: 8 articles (not SPS, not required to be independent) as representative of h-index of 10.
• PROF 3: RACI fellow, not rebutted: Chemistry in Australia, Food Australia.
• AUTHOR 1: widely cited by peers or successors: Scholar evidence above; also Bergman, U of Newcastle twice, White, Roth, Whitney twice (not required to be independent or unquestioned).
• AUTHOR 2: known for orig sig new concept: Giberson, MacDonald, O'Leary, Miller, Allen, Kostenberger, Morris, Van de Weghe, Maxfield recognize the novelty of the 50-doctorate book (not to mention Groves; not required to be independent or unquestioned).
• AUTHOR 3: sig or well-known work subj of mult ind periodical articles or reviews: 8 more independent reviews (not including 4 mentioned above).

This list was compiled to demonstrate seven prongs of argument each supported by a different subset of multiple sources. Naturally many sources support several prongs each, not just one. Wherever WP:SPS or WP:QS are used, they are used appropriately, and certainly not a majority of the time; but remember journals are not SPS. There were also 5 clear SPS not mentioned in the above list. I decline to put forward one or two of these sources as if the question can be decided on a single-champion monomachy. Further, the number of sources is limited by the amount of time in one week that RS can be found; that is, we are still only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Maybe we should extend AFD to two weeks if 45 sources is not enough. JJB 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nonsense: "novelty" of presentation≠"orig sig new concept", even if many of the sources weren't bare citations of Ashton that don't acknowledge anything beyond his book's bare existence. Most of the "peers" purported are unreliable WP:FRINGE sources and thus cannot support notability. No evidence has been presented that RACI is "highly selective and prestigious". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Updated May 10): After spending several days patiently sifting through the myriad low quality sources, I was not able to find anything at all that even came close to satisfying any of the the criteria of [[WP:PROF], WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.
  • Clearly fails all criteria of WP:PROF. Subject is a run-of-the-mill, undistinguished low-level academic with a lackluster publication and citation record and no outstanding awards or achievements. This is consistent with his low h-factor, as as Xanthippe demonstrated above. There is no substatiantial coverage of his academic pursuits or achievements in independent sources. He is not a tenured professor, but holds a low level, unpaid temporary honorary position as an "adjunct professor". He is not a chartered fellow of RACI, but only an ordinary fellow, which carries little prestige and adds nothing substantial to his notability.
  • Clearly fails all criteria of WP:AUTHOR. His books are far from bestsellers. Neither he as an author nor his books have received any substantial coverage in independent sources. His book on chocolate has gotten at best passing mention on a few occasions. The anthology he compiled was reveiwed by one independent sourced, but Ashton himself was only mentioned in passing, and the book was panned as unlikely to have any impact.
  • Clearly fails as a creationist. Receives only scant mention in independent sources. A minor bit player at best, third or fourth string. No evidence that he is widely known inside the creationist community, even in Australia. On a global scale, he's at best a blip on the edge of the radar screen, solely because of the anthology he compiled.

The amount of puffery in this article is truly staggering. The creator/expanders of the article seem to have indiscriminately larded the article with worthless sources culled from random Google, searches without examining them themselves. The sources provided are abyssma; few are independent of the subject, and the few that are are tangential, routine or trivial. In spite of their number, the total weight of the sources is still far below the equivalent of a feature article in a local newspaper.

Agree that WP:BOMBARDMENT is a problem. A whole stack of nothing still adds up to nothing. My own Google searches turned up nothing promising on Google search, Google scholar, Google news and Google books. My conclusion: an obscure third-or-fourth-string creationist noticed only by his close associates, who have a habit for inflating each other's qualifications and achievements (mutual adoration society). No substantial evidence in independent reliable sources of significant impact on either the scientific or creationist communities. Frankly, there isn't anything at all of encyclopedic value here. An impressive amount of pufferey, but no substance whatsoever. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following refers to the May 7 version of the above, not the May 10 version: I'm quoting seven notability guidelines; Xx is conducting OR about PROF#C1 that does not exist in the guideline (not remotely close?). I'm citing h-index 10, Xx is not citing h-index 6. I'm quoting RACI, Xx is conducting OR about PROF#C3 (suspicious degree?). Your dismissal does not demonstrate why I'm specifically wrong on any of the seven counts. JJB 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A h-index of 10 is still not at all impressive; it would put him, at best, in the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL category as far as his academic acievements are concerned. Membership in RACI, if true, would still add little to notability; the organization is not selective enough. Sorry, but all I see here is a whole lot of scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as sources go, and a whole lot of mutual adoration by non-independent sources. I firmly stand by my Delete !vote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered, except for your essay link that is about completely different stuff, unless you can point me to a notability talk that says otherwise. JJB 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -Please make this easy for me... what's the one thing John Ashton has done that would endure. 50 years from now what (if anything) will we remember him for? I'm not asking for a list of papers or associations or anything technical. Just explain to me without the use of complex arguments why this man is special enough to have a wikipedia page? I'm worried that we seem to be trying to justify his inclusion via complex seven-stranded arguments. That says to me that it's actually impossible to make a simple argument in this case. You could convince me to change my mind - just give me 2 reliable secondary sources that attest to his importance. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did list 2 RS several times over. I just did explain why he's special enough, seven times over. Sorry I didn't link monomachy: if I were to say that {In Six Days, Chocolate a Day, God Factor, FRACI or recognition of eminence in chemistry, or the like} by itself was special enough, and you were to say that's not special, I would be creating a situation where my argument appears weaker than it is. Your questions of "endurance" or "remembering" do not relate to notability but to some higher-stratified goalpost that this particular article is being threatened with. There are seven different arguments. You have the burden of proving that all seven are flawed because any one of them confers notability. Pick one and start with that, then come back with another and another. Nobody is doing that.

• Delete per my comments and questions above, which have not received any responses substantiating notability. This is nothing to do with the subject being a creationist, of whom there are many who are notable, but with the fact that he doesn't come close to meeting any of the many notability guidelines invoked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil, the cite counts were improved, the reviews were found, the evidence for RACI selectivity was given, the "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" was given (22:26, 6 May). I'm quoting policy, where is your view that he doesn't come close coming from? JJB 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It comes from the fact that none of the claims that you just made are true. No evidence of citation counts meeting our usual interpretation of WP:PROF criterion 1 has been provided, there are no reviews of the subject's work cited (you seem to be using a very strange interpretation of the word "review"), no evidence of RACI selectivity has been given, and the claim that the references added to the article amount to "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" is simply ridiculous - they are just a rag bag of articles cowritten by the subject, self-published web sites and bare mentions of the subject not even amounting to a full sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that accusation without evidence Phil. What is your evidence for there being a usual interpretation of PROF other than the words in the guideline that I quoted? Why are the 12 book reviews not reviews (I also added one from Reader's Digest and one from a wine journal)? Did you not read the evidence above about RACI selectivity or do you have any to impeach it? Did you read the evidence above responding to a characterization similar to your own that more than half the sources are not in any of those categories? If there were not such a severe disconnect between policy and what the deletionists have said, we could make some progress. JJB 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As per arguments cogently put forward by JJB isfutile:P (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @keepers, Suppose I just asked you to show me the biggest two beans you have. Instead what you've done is point to a handful of regular beans and state that according to some arbitrary definition these beans are actually giant beans. Next you state that seven of them together constitute a hill of beans. Meanwhile I'm still left puzzled because all I see are a mess of seven ordinary looking beans in your hand. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. I don't accept JJB's view of SCHOLAR 1 (under our usual bar I've observed as an AfD regular, cite counts typically evidence a border 1.5-2x Ashton's) or 3 (no sign that that particular honor is honorable enough). GNG, I'm having some sympathy for. I think I could make a case that the first Graves source and the ASA source as rising to GNG. Dawkins, no, that doesn't help, that source be used in my view to establish notability for Wise, but using it for Ashton is an inheritance too far. This GNG argument is perhaps weakened by Ashton being an anthologist as much as an author here (but not much so), and the open question (open to me, I have no idea)... how tied is ASA to Ashton? The closer they are, the more the GNG argument is impaired. My formal !vote is abstain, but I hope my specific thoughts on the usual interpretations of SCHOLAR 1, 3, and some of the sources will be considered. No opinons expressed relating to AUTHOR here.--joe decker^{talk to me} 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been an AFD regular but have never had occasion to read Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) until tonight, as not a soul directed me there, I had to discern that the discussion was there on my own. I will cheerfully grant that there is some suggestion there that an h-index of 14 is more apt but it varies widely by discipline, so if you want me to back off on SCHOLAR 1 unless additional info turns up, I can. The point is not that there is a "hill of beans" such that it can be dismissed by bean-counting. The point is that any one proof establishes notability, and we have six or seven; and the response is to be repeatedly told I'm lying when I'm the only one quoting policy. GNG is not settled on the two sources alone but on all the independent RS with significant coverage, such as the dozen other book reviews and several of the book authors who are independent of Ashton (sharing of a philosophy is not dependence); thus he's notable. BASIC is listed separately because the briefer mentions accumulate to notability as well; thus he's notable on the bare mentions also. SCHOLAR 3, I listed the details and source above, FRACI is awarded for eminence and the institute is parallel to the RSC, and nobody rebutted this except by WP:IDHT; so he's an inherently notable fellow too. The AUTHOR criteria speak for themselves; so he's repeatedly notable as an author too. I've never before seen people argue that 40-50 sources is an N fail. You might enjoy another view I linked above also. JJB 02:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Among the latest 15 sources (total 60) I found another Groves review, this time of Seventh Millennium, but it is a courtesy copy that does not state its original publication. However, AGF it's certainly Groves again in a full published review of yet another book. I mention this because Joe seems to prefer that kind of source. JJB 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• ???????? You "have never had occasion to read Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) until tonight" and you never noticed that it is identical to WP:PROF, which you cited extensively (if interpreting it wrongly) above? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't always read talk. No, talk is not identical to policy, and as I said above there has been no consensus for this talk to become policy. Thus while there is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, PROF 1 is still a tossup to be decided on its own merits and as one plank in the overall decision. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep In my opinion, any legitimate university professor who also writes moderately successful books for a popular audience is notable enough to warrant permitting an article here (although by all means trim any trivia-bloat in said article). Furthermore, whenever like here we have multiple independent tests under each of which separately the topic has borderline notability (in the sense that people here are arguing over whether the particular policy/guideline wording is actually satisfied or not) then taken together it should certainly qualify. In this case I can't help to think that the only real motivation for deletion is the crazy fringe views promulgated by the John F. Ashton, but I think it is much better for the encyclopedia to cover the more highly respected proponents of fringe views (always doing so from an appropriately orthodox point of view) rather than to omit coverage outright (and appear to actually be censoring). Ashton is right among the top of the short-list which members of a huge organised group (SDA) cite to try to justify entire worldviews divergent with conventional reason. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is, not one of those seven criteria of WP:PROF (or Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) if you prefer) is met even in a borderline way. Note to closing admin: as it is sometimes argued in AfDs where many arguments have been presented (like here) that early !votes should be disregarded, because they didn't see the later arguments, I would like to stress that despite all the above wikilawyering, I maintain my delete !vote, not having seen any evidence that this person meets any of our notability guidelines. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Cesiumfrog: no actually he's not a professor ("legitimate" or otherwise), he's a "research scientist" -- a position considerably lower on the Australian academic hierarchy (various grades of Lecturers would exist between them). It would most probably be the equivalent of Research associate or Research fellow, in terms of position-titles that actually have Wikipedia articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RMIT says [7] they recognise and employ him as a professor. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're talking to closing admins, I'm sure we'll note that 5 of the 7 criteria are not PROF and that this debate is not settled by PROF. We'll also note that Hrafn appears to have declined to AGF about read the statement of professoriat made in the article, and now sourced by Cesiumfrog (54th source; there were a couple other hasty decisions by Hrafn in article history). This in addition to telling me to cease and desist about my "policy contradiction", shortly before Phil Bridger also accused me of untrue claims. I'm glad it's so clear where in the disagreement pyramid everyone stands. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WPs policies and guidelines certainly isn't what most people here think (I mean the whole WP community, not just the participants here). Neither Hrafn nor Phil are guilty of violating AGF. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that (i) RMIT does not appear to be his main employment & (ii) an adjunct professor "is a professor who does not hold a permanent or full-time position at that particular academic institution" -- as such it is considerably less prestigious than a normal permanent/full-time professor position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost struck my AGF comment, but on rereading what you said was 'not a professor ("legitimate" or otherwise)', and now you admit adjunct professor, so I guess it must stand; you didn't AGF about read the editor who originally inserted the now-sourced text. I made no AGF statement about Phil, though he did accuse me of lying (or being deceived); so Guillaume has misread my plain statement. My interpretation of policy is what policy says; the contrary interpretation has mostly been OR and, in one instance, a talk page. JJB 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I just did a bit of further checking, and the Australian usage of the title 'Adjunct Professor' is a purely honorary title ([8]). As such, it is highly questionable whether Collins can be considered a "legitimate university professor". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not a deletion argument, I will reply on article talk. Collins? JJB 18:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Still beating this "is not a deletion argument" WP:DEADHORSE I see. (i) This issue was explicitly raised here by Cesiumfrog. (ii) Per WP:PROF criteria #5, Ashton's exact academic stature is relevant. He is not however employed or remunerated as an "adjunct professor", the title is only honorary -- so confers little stature. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit harder to work with you when you call a dead horse a point that I made for the first time (whether a professor or not, it's not a deletion argument); and when you act like I've ever argued from PROF 5 without your realizing that passing AUTHOR, BASIC, and the rest makes PROF 5 irrelevant. Yes, Frog stated that "professor" was part of his first argument; but then he said a lot "furthermore". If deletionists would admit that even fully defeating one argument neither lessens any other argument nor creates a deletion argument (which would be required to annul every N criterion), it would help. JJB 19:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

RMIT says [9] to them an Adjunct Professors is a recognised person of eminence in a profession/industry, and is to be accorded the style, precedence and dignity of any other RMIT Professor (also noting that this is basically the highest position available in Australia whereas most doctoral supervisors will only be at the levels of assoc.profs, senior lecturers, etc). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I, too, having read the long and tendentious arguments for keep, am unchanged in my vote to delete this BLP on the basis of the well-established Wikipedia policies WP:Prof and WP:GNG. All that has happened since this AfD debate started is that a vast amount of trivial and peripheral material has been added to the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (strong); per WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:PROF. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that the plain words of GNG, WP:BASIC, PROF and WP:AUTHOR have been dissected closely here and there is no consensus that any of them (or RS) have or have not been met. Pile-on doesn't help improve argumentation. JJB 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:PROF, does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The article is a complete disaster and would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic (but with what sources?!). The AfD has only made the article worse because of the low quality reference stuffing, for example, this source [10] which was added does not even appear to mention ashton. The references are absolutely terrible. There appears to be a near total absense of any coverage in reliable independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Google snippet does not show the word Ashton, but in search view the review begins, "A Chocolate a Day Keeps the Doctor Away by Dr. John Ashton and Suzy Ashton. Chocolate contains calcium, magnesium and potassium, which are important for good health, as well as powerful antioxidants. It's Valentine's Day — chomp". Please do not !vote based on such hasty judgment, as if all 60 sources are not reliable and independent. According to WP:BASIC they confer accumulative notability, not to mention the other WP:N criteria that have been met. JJB 22:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering you appear to have added the majority of these sources, are you claiming that you have added many unreliable sources? Note that this is a BLP article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think he meets WP:AUTHOR, though not WP:PROF. The books have been been reviewed, and together with the other work is sufficient for an article. Without respect to anyone posting here, thereare sometimes wierd feelings about borderline notable people who hold creationist views: in the first two corners, some people want to keep them in to shows that scientists are creationist, some to keep the in to shows that those scientists who are creationists are borderline; iun the opposite two corners, some try to keep them out to avoid showing that scientists who are creationists are barely notable , some want them out to include as few scientists who are creationists as possible, that the least said about them the better. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself I am not in any of those corners. I encourage Wikipedia to have articles about people who kick against the mainstream, religious or otherwise. However, they have to be notable according to Wikipedia's standards. WP:Author requires a "collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In the vast morass of dross that has been shoveled into the BLP, where are these multiple independent reviews? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Do you wish to automatically disregard all reviewers who have the same religion as the author? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xx. I think Birmingham Post, Liverpool Daily Post, Publishers Weekly, New Straits Times, The Skeptic, and Reader's Digest (for some) are all periodicals. And they are multiple and independent and have the necessary articles and reviews. JJB 03:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Could you give the numbers of the links to these in the BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. From here they're 9, 18, 20+55+58, 26, 27, and 19. JJB 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpfulness in giving these links. I have had a look at them all and I am afraid I find them inadequate. All except [27] appear to be on chocolate, mostly of a very minor nature. [27] is a review by the distinguished anthropologist Colin Groves of a book which Ashton compiled (but apparently did not contribute to) about the views of creationists with PhDs. Ashton's name is mentioned in passing only twice. It seems that Ashton's work on creationism has not made much impact. A very weak case might be made for his work on chocolate, but I don't really think it adds up to enough for WP:Author, particularly in the article's present grotesquely overblown state. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You may find them inadequate, but guideline consensus finds that multiple independent periodical reviews or articles indicate notability, and you haven't denied they are multiple, independent, periodical, or review and article. See why I don't do monomachy. JJB 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It's clear from the context of the section in question is refering to articles and reviews in academic periodicals, not newspaper reviews. You're quibbling on the word "review". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, you see the link to WP:AUTHOR. You see Xx's correct quote of it. This applies to any author. You can click the link and see the context being all creative professionals. The fact that an author may be palmed off as an academic does not mean that WP:AUTHOR does not apply. It's newspaper and magazine reviews. That's what makes authors notable. This is not the PROF page Xx is looking at anymore. Hope that helps. Sorry if being accused of quibbling makes me speak a little differently. Maybe we can now all just laugh and say we were looking at two different N pages and agree on NCDK and share a nice table at Wikimania later. JJB 03:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I was looking at the right page, and yes, scholarly articles and reviews are what is meant, not newspaper reviews. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So help me out. So John Cassidy (author) is not notable as an author under #3 unless recognized by several scholarly articles and reviews? Huh? Is the guideline missing the word "scholarly" there accidentally, or for a reason? JJB 04:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: two points: (i) this person's complete lack of any academic prominence is amply demonstrated by his chief cheerleader's (John J. Bulten) insistence on larding up the lead of this article with honorary/unremunerated/non-employment 'adjunct professor' titles, due to the lack of any substantive prominence. (ii) What (itself fairly marginal) prominence In Six Days has garnered is probably more due to, and attaches more directly to, the creationists whose testimonies are anthologised there, most (all?) of whom are considerably more prominent in the creationist community than the anthologist himself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that multiple independent honourary titles (of a significantly higher position in academia than what gets called a professor in north america) would merely be run of the mill? Seems to satisfy the condition of a higher level of eminence than an average faculty member, no? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Actually, at this point I'm just defending myself against easily disproven charges such as that I'm a chief cheerleader or I larded the titles. I sourced them and corrected one. Also, Frog's cite of RMIT does strengthen Ashton's relationship there beyond your summary above of your source alone. (ii) Sorry, this is not a deletion argument, as even if it were true it does not undo any of the other arguments, such as (but not limited to) the healthy progress Xx and Dominus are making toward recognizing AUTHOR 3 is fulfilled. However, there are 38 writers in In Six Days who don't have WP articles, so I'll gladly use your testimony of their greater prominence in any debate on retention of any of those 38 needed articles. Actually, I'm tired of making smart replies, it's just that defense mechanism against illogic again. JJB 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John "this is not a deletion argument" J. "this is not a deletion argument" Bulten: that purely honorary titles of "adjunct professor" fall way below WP:PROF #5 is indeed "a deletion argument". (ii) That you insist on including such titles, which do nothing to establish Aston's notability, in the article's lead, is indeed noteworthily poor editorial practice. (iii) That you are "his chief cheerleader" is easily established from this page's edit history.
Cesiumfrog: (i) I am saying that honorary titles provide little, if any, prominence -- they come at no cost to the bestowing institution and at no responsibility to the betowee -- they are professors only in name, not fact. (ii) You have not demonstrated that such a title is "of a significantly higher position in academia than what gets called a professor in north america". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) You still haven't realized that someone nonnotable for PROF 5 (which I never argued for) may still be notable for seven other reasons. (ii) I never insisted on such titles being in the lead; I linked how they were put there before I arrived, but you didn't take the hint. I'm not trying to organize the article right now, I'm trying to demonstrate notability. Feel free to move the whole lead downward, not counting the first sentence. (iii) Comment on contributions, not contributors. I had no interest here until I saw it at AFD; after that I'm doing nothing but making good on my very first comment above (and cutting through illogic that doesn't rebut what I said there). I will happily call myself a cheerleader for policy. JJB 07:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I "haven't realized" anything of the sort! Cesiumfrog made an argument-from-professoriat, which your adding of "adjunct professor" titles appears to be a continued attempt to support. I am (further) refuting that argument based upon WP:PROF. This is a "deletion argument". That I don't in that very post refute each and every other (spurious) argument does not stop it being a deletion argument. For the sake of clarity, I also state that the vast majority of the citations in the article either (i) aren't reliable, (ii) aren't independent (as WP:N defines it), (iii) don't provide significant coverage (i.e. are mere mention/citation) and/or (iv) unfortunately have very frequently been shown not to support the claim made to them (most recently the Mauboussin citation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up one point: you can read the article on professors to understand that the term applies to most university faculty in north america who would be called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers (i.e. positions below the one RMIT selected to accord Ashton with) in most of the commonwealth. The professor test can be summarised "more notable than an average professor", and so it would appear that even any one-time adjunct professor at such a major Australian uni would automatically be far more notable than the average person considered a professor by the average (heavily north american) wikipedia demographic. (The "honorary" phrase itself is also a possible red herring here, since there's a world of difference between awarding a one-event visiting celebrity an honourary degree, versus choosing a title for an academic involved in substantial ongoing research collaboration with other faculty members as well as being entrusted with both teaching and supervisory roles.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would also point out that we lack basic chronology information on Ashton. We only know (based upon a decade-old newspaper article) that at one time he was "a principal food research scientist at the University of Newcastle" and from that university's staff directory that he is no longer there. We likewise only know from a couple of articles that he is the co-author of that he is/was (??????????????????) "strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company" at approximately the same time (2002, 2006). Were these positions sequential or concurrent? Both have been stated in the current tense in the article, so I have to ask who is his current employer? It certainly does not appear to be RMIT or Victoria University (two of the positions mentioned in the lead). Lacking clarity on such basic information, can we really claim that we are able to write a better-than-half-arsed article about him? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you haven't realized it. No, I didn't add "adjunct professor", I only sourced it as someone else requested. No, Frog didn't argue from professoriat alone but from "moderately successful books" and "multiple independent tests". No, if I'm notable under AUTHOR 3 et al. but not notable under PROF 5, I'm notable and PROF 5 is not a deletion argument, as you haven't realized yet. Yes, some sources are (i) appropriately self-published, (ii) not independent, and/or (iii) less than significant; but in each case the exception is allowed under policy, as already closely detailed. (No, I only did 45 sources above and now there are 64, but I'm not retyping that list now.) Due to several editors working at once, some sources were temporarily (iv) not correctly glossed, but that is easily fixed and is not a deletion argument. Lack of complete chronology is not a deletion argument, as myriads of articles demonstrate. I'd love to know the answers as much as you, but WP is limited to what RS say. As to your last statement, perhaps you saw what the lowest level in the disagreement pyramid said (linked above)? JJB 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John "this is not a deletion argument" J. "this is not a deletion argument" Bulten: (i) citing non-prominent non-experts for views on WP:FRINGE subjects is not good practice, nor is it supported by either WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. (iii) a large number of citations of bare-mentions is indicative of WP:BOMBARDMENT, rather than demonstrative of notability. (iv) means that we cannot trust that the citations that you so blithely tally (one of which you have edited on the basis of, without ever having sighted it, only a Google snippet) actually say what they are purported to say, undermining all the 'keep' arguments to a lesser or greater extent. WP:Verifiability underlies most of Wikipedia policy, explicitly including WP:Notability. So whether an article's contents are in fact verifiable to their cited sources, is relevant to deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of this comment which I have not already rebutted above are too trivial to need even this sentence of reply. JJB 09:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? When (for example) we now have three citations for "strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company in Cooranbong, New South Wales", but no good information as to when he worked for them (or whether it was simultaneous with or after his UofN position), I think my point (iii) stands pretty clearly. Another example is 6 citations for "soy milk". WP:N explicitly requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content" -- I don't think that the current ridiculous patchwork meets that standard. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On being an adjunct Somewhere in the morass of muddled arguments above (sorry no time to look for the exact spot, so I'll post my comment here at the end) the suggestion is made that being an adjunct professor (even an adjunct associate professor) is somehow more notable than receiving an honorary degree. All it takes is to read the PDF linked somewhere in above-mentioned morass, to realize that being an adjunct is an honorary title, but not in the sense of "conferring an honor on somebody". It's a purely pragmatic thing, where someone does some academic work, but not enough to justify being hired by the university and paid for what they do. universities are relatively easy with these adjunct nominations: after all, it doesn't cost them a penny. Honorary degrees are very different. They are conferred only exceptionally (unlike the adjunct title which is given out routinely). They also almost invariably are accompanied by significant coverage in the media. The larger and more important the university, the more coverage, of course, but even at a minor university, at least local newspapers will take note. (And such coverage is conspicuously absent here). And the risk for a university is much larger: if they name someone adjunct that subsequently embarrasses them, they just take away the adjunct status, no big deal. Taking away an honorary degree is a much more difficult procedure and is only undertaken if after the degree was given, something really embarrassing comes out (such as scientific fraud or otherwise criminal activity). And, John, please AGF that I actually know what I'm talking about here. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR[edit]

As with any debate concise presentation of the most important facts is the way to win your argument. Complex and confusing arguments cannot help make a point. It should not be necessary if to construct complex arguments involving novel theories of notability.

It's not realistic to expect everybody to review every single source attached to this article given that a random spot-check shows that great many links are of dubious reliability, quality or relevance. That's why I've repeatedly asked the keepers to think about they way they are presenting their argument and try to focus on what is important.

I'd urge anybody who backs keeping this article to focus on one or two sources which they consider most convincing. Simply present your two best sources (with links) and let them speak for themselves. That's pretty much all we require for GNG. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article appears to have more citations than sentences (by a fairly large margin, I would suspect), I don't think the 'keepers' are likely to want to let you tie them down to "one or two". As I stated above, WP:N requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". Attempting to sidestep this straightforward requirement is what has led to all "complex and confusing arguments" you refer to. 11:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My two would be the university page validating his position (bearing in mind which titles elsewhere in the world map to that level of eminence) and the review by the ANU prof. of what I suspect is the best selling of his books. Not that I'm aware of any policy which supports restricting the sourcing like you ask. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be concrete, please. Exactly which review are you refering to? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, links please. The idea is to make it simple for other editors. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. There is no explicit citation either here, or in the article to ANU/Australian National University, and it is unclear as to whether the "university page validating his position" is for his old but rather junior employed position or one of his current but only-honorary ones. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using a very little intuition takes you to the first sentence of Colin Groves, which mentions ANU. Frog probably means 9 and 33 in this link; but that's if you limit it to two, which is a logically fallacious trivialization of the argument. Frog also said they should be taken in conjunction with RMIT's description, the author criteria, etc. JJB 15:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Baseline[edit]

Feel free to stop reading when you've seen two sources that convince you. Here's the baseline again.

• Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in The Skeptic (2.5 pages) and the Being Human conference (one subject of the last 3-page section), reliable independent sources 33 and 34. I didn't see these rebutted.
• Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in Think Twice (2 pages) and IEEE Xplore (1 page), reliable independent sources 44 and 45. I didn't see these rebutted.
• Ashton is presumed notable for coverage in Free Inquiry (1 page) and Perspectives on Science and Chrisitan Faith (1 page) combined with the above, multiple published secondary reliable independent sources 35 and 43 (not required to be significant). Perspectives was rebutted as not intellectually independent of the subject, but "independent sources" means relationally independent of the subject.
• Ashton is notable for several extremely highly cited scholarly publications 5-6, 15-20 (not required to be independent, not required by the guideline to have any particular h-index). N.b. I have not pressed this argument after discovering talk evidence of its usual interpretation as having a higher bar than its plain words "several extremely".
• Ashton is notable for fellowship in RACI, a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor ("a position of eminence in the chemistry field [and] services rendered to the RACI"), as per Chemistry in Australia and Food Australia, reliable independent sources 1 and 3. This was not rebutted except with WP:OR questioning how this statement could be true given the dates.
• Ashton is likely notable (1) for being widely cited by peers Bergman, University of Newcastle, White, Roth, Whitney, and Alphacrucis (not required to be independent or unquestionable), sources 2, 12-13, 36, 38, 50-51, 58. Not rebutted.
• Ashton is likely notable (2) for originating a significant new concept, the book of 50 doctorates affirming 6-day creation, as seen in MacDonald, O'Leary, Miller, Giberson, Allen, Kostenberger, Morris, Van de Weghe, Maxfield (not required to be independent or unquestionable), sources 39-42, 46-48, 55-56. I haven't rechecked to ensure every one of them makes that claim but to the extent they don't they can be counted toward criterion (1), peers, above. It was rebutted that this was not a significant new concept, but prima facie, based on the number of people taking note of just that concept, it is.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Chocolate a Day in Just-Food, Birmingham Post, Daily Post, Reader's Digest, Publishers Weekly, M2 Best Books, Grocery Headquarters, Australian Grapegrower, That's Life!, New Straits Times, multiple independent periodicals 4, 11, 22-29.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Seventh Millennium in Nexus New Times Magazine, Publishers Weekly, and a Colin Groves article, multiple independent periodicals 59-60, 62.
• Ashton is likely notable (3) for reviews of Perils of Progress in Publishers Weekly and Fluoride, multiple independent periodicals 63 and 65.
• Ashton is presumed notable (miscellaneous) for coverage of Chocolate a Day in Nina Planck, review of God Factor in De Berg, and review of Perils of Progress at Wake Forest University combined with the above, multiple published secondary reliable independent sources 21, 57 and 64 (not required to be significant).
• Self-published, nonindependent, or not about Ashton but properly listed for context: 7-10, 14, 30-32, 37, 49, 52-54, 61.
• In addition to the deletionists' weaknesses noted, four delete !voters have contributed to the article, one very significantly, thus lending less weight to their delete comments. JJB 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC) JJB 17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, please link to the sources (not the policies). Please limit yourself to the top 2 you'd like us to consider. Please delete anything that is not in your top two. As I said before, if you have 2 good sources, that's all we need for GNG. Just show me which are your two best. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, encouraging JJB to continue his filibuster seems counterproductive to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt one last time. Unless JJB can reformulate his passionately held beliefs concisely I was going to escalate this to admin/N for a speedy close. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must comment on Salim's unusual request. The sources are all linked from the version of the article already linked above. The unabashed request to delete all but two sources appears an explicit refusal to consider all the evidence. Salim may simply start with the first two and stop reading there, one concise sentence without any tendentiousness, if it's true that "You could convince me [Salim] to change my mind"; but maybe it's true that two sources will not change your mind, in which case proceed to the next two, and the next. If Salim is unable to distinguish the first concise bullet point as a separate argument from each bullet point that follows, I don't think escalation will help. The illogic of Salim's request being demonstrated, I don't know that I have more to say, except to correct any future misstatements. JJB 17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

John J. Bulten: when you repeat the ludicrous claim that an anthology of personal testimonies is in some way amounts to "originating a significant new concept", or that your witless parade of insignificant nonentities either (i) are qualified to make such a claim or (ii) actually make it, you quite simply jump the shark. I'm with David Eppstein in wishing that you'd stop with the argumentum ad nauseam. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJB, I'm a little disappointed. I'm trying to play fairly here by explaining a better way to present your case. Instead of taking my advice you are simply making the exact same argument as before. Why not trust that your fellow editors know the applicable policies at least as well as you, and simply present the sources. Just link us to a maximum of two. A good source will speak for itself... it will be far more persuasive than any complicated arguments. If you really feel that this is some kind of dishonest ploy please say so and we can move to end the discussion promptly. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, JJB, for linking the first two of the sources under consideration. I'm still not convinced that they contribute to Ashton's notability, but rather to the possible notability of the book that he compiled. The sources discuss the writings of the authors of the various chapters of that book rather than those of Ashton. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• JJB, you are making some progress. Let me help you some more: Put only one link per line. If you are linking to a PDF make sure you tell editors where to look (e.g. give us the page number). There's no need to quote which policy you think it supports. Delete anything superfluous. Delete all the links we other than the two we are going to discuss. If in doubt, leave it out. Try to include two very different sources (e.g. do not select two skeptical magazines). I'm trying to help you simplify your argument. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJB, Since you have decided to paste a wall, I will describe the first four sources:

1. The Skeptic, by it's nature looks at minority and fringe views. The book is not written by Ashton, the coverage is not of Ashton but the book.

2. For the conference proceedings there is a small mention (I've never even seen conference proceedings used to establish notability).

3. Ashton is not discussed in Think Twice.

4. Ashton is not discussed in the IEEE source.

This does not help build a picture of significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG for Ashton. Therefore I still say Delete. The other points have been addressed by others but you appear determined to ignore them. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (after edit conflict) The Think Twice and IEEE Xplore sources do not have any coverage of Ashton, let alone two pages and one page, but are simply footnotes citing him. Citations do not contribute to the general notability guideline but can contribute to WP:PROF criterion 1, where the criterion is "highly cited", which in our practice means many hundreds of citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please give JJB time to identify his strongest sources and structure his argument. Certainly a source which only mentions the subject as a footnote or reference cannot be said to be "substantially" about the subject and does not qualify as the kind of thing we need in this discussion. I hope JJB will use this an an opprtunity to learn about what kinds of sources can be used to show notability and adjust his shortlist accordingly. Please hold back from debate until he is confident that he has identified his two most reliable secondary sources. I'm sure he understands that testing other editor's patience by presenting incorrectly selected sources cannot help his case. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• JJB presented those two sources, and has now presented more after I questioned them. It's quite reasonable to go through the sources two by two in this way in order to focus the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Free Inquiry source written by Richard Dawkins is about one of the contributors to the book edited by Ashton, not about Ashton. Again, this could contribute to the notability of the writer or the book, but not of its editor. Perspectives on Science and Chrisitan Faith is another such source - I presume that this is claimed to contribute to notability per WP:AUTHOR, but Ashton is the editor, not the author. A subsidiary issue with this source is that it is from an advocacy organisation, which I doubt meets our requirements for reliable sources. And, before any accusations of bias are made, I realise that some of the sources that I discussed above are also from advocacy organisations with a different viewpoint Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to create special one-link-per-line include-page formatting for Salim to understand; I created WP-compliant formatting, in the article. It's not my job to act like seven or a dozen notability arguments are one or two so that anyone can trash-talk the one and ignore the rest as if defeated. It's certainly not my job to go along with the idea that my not doing these things is somehow escalatable. The 65 sources are listed in the article, with page numbers, and it's a much simpler matter to use the baseline link and look up the footnote numbers I provided than to go on with this (apparent) claiming not to be able to understand the argument. I repeated the source arguments in full, by request, three times with greater detail each time. Phil is free to do the review 2 at a time, or 65 at a time (like I do); there is no need for me to repeat all the links. I have never seen an AFD where multiple editors are actually saying, long after 1 week has passed, whoa, too many sources, don't make me rebut them all. As if that's a logical delete argument? Hrafn at least added tags and was satisfied when they were addressed, rather than repeating the same claimed inability to read what's been written many times. I'm not playing by nonpolicy rules created ad hoc. While the closer has a lot of reading to do, that's not all my fault. Each notability criterion stands or falls on its own, and even if only one stands it presumes notability and keeping the article. JJB 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the guy's academic publication history would be enough for me, but this source [[11]] p43 onwards, and this source [[12]] I think are enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:N. The fellowship also adds considerable weight. isfutile:P (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. JJB 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• One of those two sources is, again, about a book that Ashton merely edited; it is not about Ashton and it is not about Ashton's own intellectual contributions. The second, "a proposal for ABET criterion 9" by Gail Baura, contains only a single relatively trivial citation to the same edited volume (as an example of the sort of nonsensical beliefs that students in ABET-accredited programs are expected to distinguish from valid science); it does not contain any nontrivial detail either about the book or about Ashton. These are very very far from the sort of sources that WP:GNG requires, or the sort of demonstrated intellectual impact that WP:PROF#C1 requires. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JJB, You have stated that each of these sources contains "significant coverage" of our subject, however the reviews above clearly explain why that the coverage is trivial at best and non-existent in some cases. Can you explain why you chose to put these sources at the top of your short-list given that they do not significantly cover the subject we are debating? I am sure we would all appreciate an explanation for this apparent discrepancy. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not stated that each of these sources contains significant coverage: the two sources immediately above are Tonyinman's preference. No, I have not stated that all 65 sources are significant, I stated that the criteria calling for significant coverage were satisfied and the criteria calling for cumulative coverage were also satisfied. No, I did not put the two sources in question at the top of my "short-list", as the top two were both Groves, and it was not a short-list. Two 2.5-page reviews of a book are significant coverage of the editor of the book, unless you are thinking along the lines that all sources can be excluded since they are, again, only about a human body that Ashton is inhabiting; maybe Ashton's body is notable enough for its own article instead.

As yet another outreach attempt, the question you seem to want to ask was more like why my list was ordered the way it was. The first four sources were based on GNG because it is the general guideline, and also the first one I mentioned in my very first comment so long ago. Also, at least there is consensus that Groves is independent of Ashton, so there is OR that the reviews of his book are too short or not about him. Then there are several arguments from BASIC, AUTHOR, and PROF, all of which are also still standing. Now I previously stated many times that I believed your team would ignore the 60 sources and pick on the 2, which you have done in spades. I told you if you didn't like the first two to go down the list until you like two, and you have not done so. Therefore I have accumulated enough prima facie evidence of illogic that I decline to continue to explain to you rather than the closer. The various unrebutted criteria each stand on their own; I won't be tabulating a list of which criterion had which OR or illogical response, to demonstrate the failure of rebuttal in each case, unless necessary for DRV. I never believed I'd find people on WP telling me that an article with 65 good sources fails every notability criterion. JJB 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@JJB, Recently You wrote the following: Ashton is presumed notable for significant coverage in Think Twice (2 pages) and IEEE Xplore (1 page), reliable independent sources 44 and 45. I didn't see these rebutted.. As has already been explained these sources which you describe as having "significant coverage" actually contain no coverage at all. Can you explain this contradiction? --Salimfadhley (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also commend Tonyinman's thoughts to you. The only reason I'm not repeating the burden-of-proof argument the fifth time (the first time was in the article itself) is that it is so clearly already laid out, and so illogically objected to, as not to need repetition. JJB 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Confirm Delete !vote: I'm tired of wading through the vast cesspool of lousy sources that JJB has created looking for the pearl that he assures us is there. I have honestly spent a great deal of time evaluating the sources, and have found NOTHING, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, that comes even close to satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. And so have a whole slew of other experienced editors.

I've given JJB every chance to prove to me that there is some reason to retain the article, and he has failed miserably. I wasted a considerable amount of time sifting through the dozens of extremely poor quality sources, and have come to the conclusion that this article is a hopelessy bloated piece of puffery that contains nothing of encyclopedic value and can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, I'll give you credit for doing the best at attempting to reply to the multipronged argument as it stands, instead of claiming not to understand it as another editor has done. I'm very concerned that your review above and here relies on a steady stream of peacock words and putdowns, such as I parodied when I said, "Not notable because these sources are only about the body Ashton lives in and have nothing to do with him personally". Anything can be made to appear nonnotable, or notable, with such language. However, your elaborations do merit review to glean whether they arrive at the crux of the argument, and that may occur prior to any DRV. For me, the ease of finding good sources is much greater than in most AFDs where I've been accused of use of a bicycle pump, and so it would not be easy to lose my views of the subject's notability. But who knows what a day will bring. JJB 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're routinely accused of using a bicycle pump, have you considered that there might be some truth to it? Did you ever consider that your reading of the notability amd sourcing policies and guidelines is way too lax, and requires adjusting? There seems to be an element of denial or WP:IDHT at work when you are at odds with and casually disregard the considred opinions of a whole bunch of experienced editors like Xanthippe, Hrafn, IRWolfie, Professor marginalia, Phil Bridger, Guillaume2303, David Eppstein and Salimfadhley, who have taken the time to actually look at the sources and explain why they are inadequate. A little self-examination wouldn't hurt, especially considering that the above-mentioned, like me, have taken your claims at face value and have devoted no small amount of time to patiently examining and evaluating them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Move to close debate I think we have debated this topic sufficiently. We appear to have reached a state of deadlock. I do not feel that the keepers feel any urge to approach this AFD differently. I do not detect any change amongst the deleters. There is probably not much more that needs to be said on either side. Could you kindly vote "close" if you want to end the discussion or "not close" if you feel there are significant issues which we have not yet addressed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] close --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] It's probably unnecessary, the lifetime of an AfD is about 2 weeks, an admin will be closing the AfD soon anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] not close - just because you might be sick of the discussion, it doesn't mean no-one else has anything to add. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] This section is as patently problematic as asking for two refs, seeing the two refs provided on one line, and asking them to be moved onto two lines before replying to them. Not looking for the policy that say that right now though. JJB 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment a note on the ASA: it is an organisation of Christian scientists. As such it is sympathetic to the theism expressed in creationism. The predominate viewpoint of the organisation however is that of theistic evolution. It does occasionally provide a forum for creationists to present and debate their views. I would however point out that the ASA/PSCF review is quite short and rather superficial, so would not seem to "address the subject directly in detail". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The effort that's been spent to provide the verification needed that this subject meets the necessary criteria is admirable, but regretfully, only underscores that it is not for lack of effort that the article doesn't merit here. Obviously having one's name published someplace is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, or most anyone would qualify somehow. And having a name published in numerous non-notable situations doesn't change things. Even the best of the sources produced for this article are just barely worth looking deeper into, but they don't help-not enough. It doesn't matter that there is just 1 source or 30 if none measure up. Piling 30 or 100 sources of no quality doesn't change things. If we have suitable sources, we don't need unsuitable sources-and we certainly don't need a pile of them. Besides the WP:Coatrack problem created by such "piles" of crumbs, it's impossible to deal with WP:UNDUE without WP:OR when dealing with fringe figures/subjects that go ignored in WP:RS. The abundance of paltry sources further convinces me the article should be deleted. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:PROF #3 seems to apply quite clearly here, as StAnselm suggests (The person is ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor), since "The RACI Fellow Membership grade is awarded in recognition of a RACI Member (MRACI) who is in a position of eminence within the chemistry profession. A Fellowship is universally recognised as a marker of professionalism and expertise. Election to this grade is based on: Services rendered to the RACI, Academic qualifications and honours, Experience and status, Creative achievement in chemistry, Responsibility and contribution to chemical science." The FRACI is in no way lesser to the "Chartered FRACI," as Phil Bridger suggests (there is simply a distinction made for certain types of professional registration), nor is there any reason to take an Australian society as inferior to its US counterpart. Ashton is also an adjunct professor; this is a substantial honour in Australia and the UK, where professor is the highest level of academic rank (unlike a US professorship which is equivalent to an Australian or UK lectureship). RMIT's annual report defines it more specifically as "a person of eminence in a profession or industry." Since Ashton's recognised contributions are largely in the Australian food industry, they are not reflected in a large h-index, although the searches above have missed this paper with 108 citations. -- 202.124.73.201 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why this assumption that people are looking at this with a pro-US and anti-Australian bias? I, for one, am not American, and am more familiar with Commonwealth-style academic ranks than American ones, and disagree with your characterisation of an adjunct professorship as a substantial honour. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But why do you disagree? In Australia, adjunct lecturers are much more common; adjunct professorships are comparatively rare. RMIT University's own definition is that adjunct professors are persons "of eminence in a profession or industry." -- 202.124.74.80 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of the title is explained here: [13]. That is why we are disagreeing with you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That document is WP:OR, and it isn't even clear if it was adopted by the institution it was originally prepared for. The author's own bio reveals the document was in fact not published. [[14]] The file is placed in a 'public' file repository on their server - common for even unpublished undergraduate theses. I can't find any independent references to that document. The writer [[15]]wouldn't meet Notability, nor would the document. Why are you relying on such a document to underpin an argument regarding the notability of adjunct professors? Surely you have better sources to back up that claim? It would take a lot more that this [[[16]]] frankly random document to convince me that adjunct professors were not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The document comes with this statement in the summary: Commissioned by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, its purpose is to provide background on current conventions, policy and practice in Australian public universities to assist in the development of guidelines for non-self accrediting higher education providers. by an expert on policy development in the area of higher education practice. This gives it a very clear relevance. Also citing content policies about no original research has no bearing here as this is not an article, but a discussion. By the way, WP:OR applies to editors not sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, VRQA obviously paid for that report, but they don't appear to have endorsed it. It's not clear that the author of the report is a recognised expert anyway, in spite of what her personal web page says, and the report only applies to six Australian universities, of which RMIT University is not one. Also, RMIT University is a self accrediting higher education provider (i.e. the government trusts it). I fail to see the report's relevance. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reports get commissioned all the time. A 'commission' doesn't make a report relevant or notable. If the report was published, endorsed, referred to, cited, referenced in third party sources; then it might make it relevant, and possiblynotable - but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate this. Without such evidence, the report holds no authority and it is reasonable to assume that this report is not relevant to, and cannot back up the assertion that, adjunct professors are not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unpublished report of a general nature means nothing; particularly when RMIT has a specific definition for how it uses the "adjunct professor" term. In Ashton's case the "adjunct professor" title is associated with government-funded research with RMIT in the food science area. However the FRACI (equivalent to FRSC in the UK) is more significant, clearly satisfying WP:PROF on its own. -- 202.124.72.61 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RACI is nowhere near as prestigious as the Royal Society is, so a direct comparison is worthless, there are only just over a thousand Royal society fellows across all the sciences. The RACI is the professional body for chemistry in Australia closer to something like the Institute of Physics (F.Inst.P doesn't give notability). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how this argument takes up such space when it merely quibbles over preserving material prior to the AFD that was never advanced for notability, although some editors thought that it was being defended as some kind of PROF 5 argument. It's pretty clear that he's an adjunct professor and separately an associate adjunct professor, and that the value of these titles is hotly debated. But why such a debate to insult the man, when it has nothing to do with a notability argument? JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Confirm Delete !vote. In addition to my earlier comments, which were based on the content of the article and the lack of good sources that could be found on its subject, JJB's problematic behavior here and on the article (WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:WIKIPUFFERY) makes it look very unlikely that we can maintain a properly sourced and properly neutral article. Essentially, anything that anyone else removes for being too weakly sourced, too picayune, or too remote from the subject gets put back redoubled. If there is a core of notability here (which I doubt, but if there is) then he is making it impossible for the rest of us to find it by insisting on padding the article with all this non-notable fluff. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the talk section about cold-reverting by you and another editor that did not account for new material, where I declined to continue my adds, which included restoration of material others had advocated for. None of my three adds were solely putting back deleted material "redoubled". But if you're truly confirming your delete, why not wait until your confirmed belief is challenged by the article closer and react to any new consensus at that time? Your revert activity belies your !vote. JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please assume good faith. In fact, my activity editing the article was intended to try to improve it, to see whether it could be put into a shape that would be good enough to convince me to change my !vote. Instead, because of your reversions, it only got even worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great: so, AGF, you resolve the apparent conflict by admitting you're not confirmed in your delete !vote. See also below JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a BLP article and poorly sourced material should be removed even if it is going to be deleted; this is fairly standard procedure. Poorly sourced material isn't somehow acceptable just because an article is at AfD. One addition was a synthesis, the other was off topic, note that you re-inserted the material 3 times instead of stopping and discussing. This has no bearing on the AfD though so I fail to see why you are bringing it up here. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you don't like my teaching you about BLP, but you mean poorly sourced contentious material. The material in question is not contentious: it said that Farrell and RMIT discuss professorship, and that Mauboussin and Baura critically cite Ashton. None of this is contentious material about Ashton or any other BLP, or if it were there would be a deletionist rampage against any citation whatsoever (even critical) as being contentious because the person's views are contentious. Further, my post of Farrell and RMIT was not a synthesis, it was a standard synthesis-avoiding two-sentence version where you can draw your own conclusion (although another editor's gloss of Farrell was a synthesis, as disproved by the IP, because she didn't survey RMIT). Nor was the insertion of consensus material from Kurt Wise off-topic as it all related to Ashton's editing of Wise's prose; my intent was that we discuss how to summarize this other local consensus rather than to have it cold-reverted. Nor did I reinsert any material three times, as each add was different, although all 3 brought Farrell back in because she had previously been held as a valid source and she had been cold-reverted twice by editors claiming a sole intent to revert other parts of my add than Farrell. This is not the same material 3 times, this is an attempt to clarify whether those editors favor Farrell or not, a question I raised at talk. Finally, while it's true that discussing my 3 different adds is not really appropriate for you to raise at AFD, if you were claiming to remove poorly sourced contentious material in your edit summary (rather than alleged synthesis), I would have given you a pass from your continued vitiation of your !delete !vote. So what I brought up, the fact that several editors' actions appear to be angling for NCDK rather than delete, is relevant to the debate. JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note Note that there appears to be some of page coordination between JJB and other editors: [17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already mentioned when I discovered it. I'm amused that you find this to be coordination and that a plurality of other editors are involved; who's the third party you allege? JJB 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
• Confirm Delete !vote.. My initial delete vote was based on the lack of good sources for this article. This view was confirmed after reviewing JJB's shortlist. Put simply, none of the articles were reliable secondary sources which gave significant coverage to the subject. Some of the items on JJB's shortlist did not cover the subject at all! I agree with David Eppstein, that the problem here is our inability to identify any "core" of notability and the obfuscatory WP:WIKIPUFFERY of JJB which has wrapped this discussion in a haze confusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a shortlist, that was your dismissive name. For the rest, except the personal commentary, see below. JJB 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears JJB is creating strawman arguments by misrepresenting the delete arguments. He has also placed his comment in a collapsable box to try and stop others replying. This essentially appears to be disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's illogical to accuse a person of WP:TLDR first and then of disruption because he decided to collapse his text later. Writing for the enemy opponent is not strawman; in many cases I quoted the opposition; collapsed text does not stop replies from editors who have shown the WP experience these editors have. If you do not believe I have characterized the arguments, feel free to comment in any reasonably threaded way. JJB 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You didn't decide to collapse the text later. you added it and collapsed it at the same time: [18]. Also calling me "the enemy" is battlefield mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Later" means later than the previous argument cited as TLDR. I see that WP:ENEMY has been retitled so I will refactor given that the phrase had previously been used widely without invoking battlefield mentality. JJB 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

People invoking TLDR means it was too long, not paste it again with strawman arguments and collapsed in a box. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate the strawman. JJB 18:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I appreciate IRWolfie citing one alleged strawman at ANI. This has been refactored and replied to more directly in the collapse box, which strengthens the overall conclusion of this discussion. If there are any other substantive responses I'm still here. Anyone can edit the collapse box, of course. JJB 19:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have brought this up at this ANI thread [[19]]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Assessment of JJB's spurious "Final responsive analysis":
  1. It misrepresents the facts.
  2. It misrepresents the relevant policy.
  3. It misrepresents his opponents arguments.

  It is in fact WP:Complete bollocks. It isn't worth the (tiny value of) the bandwidth it's written on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that "bollocks" is an obscenity and thus that it can be easily classified here? JJB 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It happens to be the title of an essay that perfectly expresses my impression of your baseless and tendentious "analysis". If it is considered an "obscenity", then I'm less worried about that than the obscene waste of our time that your endless spurious argumentation has become. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article itself makes it plain that he is not notable, and IRWolfie and Hrafn make excellent points about lack of notability in more precise terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Nomo. I recommend you review the last collapse box, in which those arguments are considered in the best light I can find. Some retention criteria have been insufficiently rebutted by these editors, and one (WP:AUTHOR #3) involves seven reliable independent sources that have not been rebutted at all. To delete, it is necessary to demonstrate that all retention criteria listed have been fully rebutted. JJB 20:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Dominus Vobisdu, IRWolfie and Hrafn. Large number of citations, but they appear to be trivial mentions or not actually about the subject of the article. If I've missed something in the mass of text above, feel free to link me one or two sources in specific and I'll take a look with an eye to changing my !vote. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To uphold a delete, it is necessary to demonstrate that all 60-70 sources specifically fail to confer notability, and so looking only at two sources will not sustain a delete !vote. (There are also another 16 random sources at article talk for future reference.) But to get started, go to #Baseline, look at the stable basteline diff, and take one bullet point at a time until you're tired of it. It does require a slight technical knowledge that some editors have expressed to be a challenge: you open the baseline link in a second window and then look at the footnote numbers in the bullet point in the first window and search for them in the second window. I trust you can handle that. The first bullet point lists two 3-page independent RS reviews by Colin Groves of In Six Days, which are discounted on the novel argument that they are only about a book Ashton has edited. This argument is contrary to WP:AUTHOR, which treats authors identically to editors. After you patch up any flaws in that delete argument, you would need to go down the list. Seven of the 65 sources in that list have never been rebutted specifically. (The same instructions apply to Salim who expressed willingness to do this.) Thanks for your interest. JJB 21:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's the world on its head. One cannot "prove" mack of notability, you can only show notability. Which has never been done yet. In an AfD, the burden of proof is not on those doubting notability, but on those who want to show notability. Which, of course, is abundantly eady: just show one or two reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage and you're done. Bombarding us with dozens of trivial non-references and filibustering about every little detail is not changing anything to the fact that notability has not been shown. And given the amount of energy that you have put into this, I think that comes as close to "proving" the absence of notability as humanly possible. Can we now please close this abomination and get back to work? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this guy seems pretty reasonably notable to me, though a little loopy due to some of his views. I would like to be reminded of the notability policy, which requires only that the subject be referenced in adequate, verifiable, reliable sources and not necessarily because the subject itself might seem less than spectacular due to his works, beliefs, views, etc. Dr. Ashton's work is reasonably well-respected in the Australian gastronomics field and according to he publisher's weekly citation (no 59) he has even received a Templeton Prize, which fits under the notability threshold for writers unless I am highly mistaken. Much respect, DrPhen (talk)`

Dr Phen, which section of the PW book review[20] shows that "Ashton's work is reasonably well-respected in the Australian gastronomics field"? Do we have a sourcee for Ashton being awarded a Templeton prize? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the article, doesn't it? I can't view the PW article myself but in the article it says that his work received a Templeton Prize and the citation is #59, leading to the Publishers Weekly article. The part about Ashton's work being well-respected is based on my interpretation of th sources, in which he appears to be a researcher in good standing in that field (as linked to in the very first elements of the article. I could be wrong, but if I am then that means that the article itself is filled with inaccuracies and mistaken citations, which is problematic, right??? Yours truly, DrPhen (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Templeton prize, the article says: 1990s Ashton coauthored The Perils of Progress with Harvard- and Oxford-educated philosopher Ronald S. Laura (with foreword by Templeton Prize winner Charles Birch) - which means Ashton did not win it, however a Templeton prize-winner did contribute a small segment of Ashton's book. Regarding PW, it only states that Ashton is an Australian Chemist (which is true). It does not give any information about his personal or professional standing in that country. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did not win a Templeton: [[21]]. However, I think this particular thread is a Red Herringisfutile:P (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I really have egg on my face this time! That sentence was wholly unambiguous; I can't see how I misread it to that extent. My apologies to all of you for the mix up, and many thanks for your patience in clearing up my misinterpretion. I'll definitely have to peruse (well, re-peruse) as many of the other sources as I can. Thanks again! DrPhen (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There has been a significant amount of editing and talk page discussion since this AfD was closed. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Gabriel Pomerand[edit]

Gabriel Pomerand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

no references on a biographical article (NOT BLP) RichardMills65 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No references is an opportunity to seek and improve. In the case of Pomerand, it is less than two weeks since I viewed his work on exhibition in the Pompidou Centre in Paris. AllyD (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quick google, google scholar and google book searches provide dozens of English and French sources, many beyond the trivial. Article needs work and sources, but the subject is notable per WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 02:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the Lipstick Traces reference, I found this biography (p. 60), though it is only available in snippet view. There is also a little bit of commentary here (p. 95). That's probably enough to make a small biography, and I'm sure there is more material out there too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of references in histories of lettrism/avant-garde art. Adding to the existing links, there's 2 recent reviews of his book St Ghetto of the Loans[22][23]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-Cash[edit]

No-Cash (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)

Procedural nomination. Original nom reopened the old one instead of creating new one. Original reason was:

Does not meet criteria for WP:Music. Note that the page was deleted previously in 2007 Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the band's page as well as the Run Your Pockets album article. No coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Gongshow. I was wondering why it wasn't lumped in. The article itself is a bloody mass of conjecture. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on both. I've added a little to both articles, but WP:RS coverage is admittedly a bit thin. However, they were a real band, and they do have an audience--listening stats for Run Your Pockets at Last.fm are better than plenty of other albums in WP (trust me). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Fire broadcasters[edit]

List of Chicago Fire broadcasters (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)

Tables of (mostly) red links, with almost no context do not make a useful article. Even if these issues were addressed, I cannot see how the article benefits Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chicago Fire Soccer Club. Information would be more useful there. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What do you want to merge here? This is irrelevant Trivia at its best. It's unsourced too. And polish commentators have what relevant connection to the club? I'd say none. -Koppapa (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters are relevant because they are part of the team's history. The polish commentators are particularly relevant because the Fire were the only professional sports team in the U.S. to broadcast their games in Polish. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced trivia. GiantSnowman 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although the author has improved the article it's still Listcruft & of little/no benefit. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jack MacDougall[edit]

Jack MacDougall (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, unelected politician without significant media coverage. West Eddy (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep former leader of a provincial political party, who led a party in an election and participated in the leaders' debate[24]. Long standing consensus to keep less notable leaders of political parties. - Jord (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source's entire content about MacDougall is Green Party Leader Jack MacDougall had both Graham and Alward in his rhetorical sights. “You both sound the same. That is the trouble,” MacDougall said. “They are one and the same. You [voters] are being sold snake oil. What you are leaving to our children is unconscionable.” Substantial coverage #FAIL. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, participation in the leaders debate makes him notable. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the only cited source for it perfunctorily acknowledges his existence while actually being overwhelmingly about Shawn Graham and David Alward and Roger Duguay, it doesn't. There's a huge difference between demonstration of notability and mere confirmation of existence — the latter is not sufficient for our needs here, especially in a BLP. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#Development of a policy for minor party inclusion in infoboxes? 117Avenue (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw.  thesimsmania  22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was opened, then closed by the same non-admin user. The result should be withdrawn not keep. QU ^TalkQu 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Fleming[edit]

Frank J. Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Notability in question. All references are to the Wikipedia article  thesimsmania  20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean, "All references are to the Wikipedia article"? The external references are to the New York Post and HarperCollins websites, among other places.EricJamesStone (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. References are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material, and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's advisable to also include a reference to say from where it came. If you need any assistance, let me know. Make sure to name your sources to prevent confusion.  thesimsmania  21:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Yasht101 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Alfred Fischer (judge)[edit]

Alfred Fischer (judge) (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 indication of notability, fails WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, a reference was found indicating notability, thereby article meets WP:GNG Gsingh (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A judge at this level ("The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) is one of the five federal supreme courts of Germany. It is the court of the last resort for generally all cases of administrative law, mainly disputes between citizens and the state. It hears appeals from the Oberverwaltungsgerichte, or Superior Administrative Courts, which, in turn, are the courts of appeals for decisions of the Verwaltungsgerichte (Administrative Courts).) is usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I could not find any webpages referring to Alfred Fischer as a Federal Court Judge, other than copies of the Wikipedia article, so the claim is unverifiable as of now. Gsingh (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Eastmain. To address Gsingh's concern, I've now added his published obtuary as a reference in the article. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. Persuasive case. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - nominator has indicated desire to withdraw nomination. Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and violence[edit]

Mormonism and violence (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's scope is ill-defined, it represents and original synthesis of many topics, it attracts COATRACK material, and is mostly duplicated in other articles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This article, as created in 2007, was a fairly decent article, although a good deal of it was sourced to Mormon scripture. It gave a general overview of Mormon doctrines about violence, when it's allowed, when it's not, and then listed a few notable instances of violence committed against Mormons and by Mormons.

In 2008 the article was considered for deletion and the result was keep, with a consensus that the article needed to be cleaned up.

In 2009, the article underwent some drastic changes. The sections about violence committed against Mormons were stripped from the article, and a new section on Violence related to LGBT people was added. From June 2009 until April 2012 (when I made these edits: [25], [26]) the article was a complete WP:POV Fork, in that it only mentioned violence committed by Mormons, completely ignoring the long history of violence against Mormons (expulsion from Ohio, Missouri, Nauvoo, extermination order, wars, etc.) My recent attempts to modify the article have been met with considerable resistance.

The scope of the article is not well-defined.

A couple of attempts have been made to define the scope of the article, and as far as I can tell they have ended in no consensus. It is unclear whether the article is about violence in Mormon doctrine (a reasonable subject), violence committed against Mormons because they're Mormons (i.e. hate crimes), violence committed by Mormons (random collection of criminals who happen to be Mormon), violence committed by Mormons because they're Mormon (doctrinal violence), etc. Should the mailing of fake Anthrax to Mormon leaders during the California Proposition 8 controversy be included? (This has been the subject of a recent edit war.) Should the killings of Mormon Missionaries be included? (Right now they're not.) Should there be a section on violence against Mormons? (For almost 3 years there wasn't.) What about acts of violence committed by or against Mormons, that have nothing to do with Mormonism, other than that Mormons were involved?

The article is an Original Synthesis of many topics.

This is related to my first point. As far I can tell, there is no scholarly source that links the various topics of this article together. We have a cornucopia of subjects treated here, and there's no scholarly work we can look to to find out what we should include and how much weight to give it. Mind you, the topic of the article would be a great topic for a book, and the 2007 version would have made a good scholarly article. However, given the dynamics of Wikipedia, it is hard to maintain a good article unless you have a dedicated editor who knows a lot about the subject, or a good source that covers it completely. As far as I can tell, we currently have neither.

Note: the closest thing I could find to a comprehensive source was Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which talks about the history of violence in Mormonism, but then splits off to follow a very small fringe group of Mormon Fundamentalists.

The article tends to attract WP:COATRACK material.

Example: in 1976, an LDS Church leader gave a sermon, that among other things, encouraged Mormon young men to vigorously defend themselves against unwanted sexual advances from homosexual peers. The sermon was later published as a pamphlet and widely distributed. In 2000, an ex-Mormon scholar wrote a piece that among other things criticized the pamphlet as an endorsement of gay-bashing. Because gay-bashing involves violence, a section on the pamphlet was included in the article. However, Mormon leaders have repeatedly emphasized that violence, and specifically gay-bashing, is not compatible with Mormon doctrine, so those statements are also included in the article. Before you know it, you have an entire section on the pamphlet, including lengthy quotes from both "sides" and in the process we lose sight of what the article is really about.

The article is substantially duplicated by many other articles.

See, for instance, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, California Proposition 8, Anti-Mormonism, Mormonism, Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mountain Meadows massacre, Blood Atonement, Capital punishment#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints, and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• I think Delete would be the easiest option, merging any unduplicated material to the relevant articles. The unlikely, but probably best option would be to clearly define the scope of the article, find a source that completely covers the topic, and then rewrite the article (hard). The most likely option is probably to do nothing and let the editors battle it out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Recent consensus did agree that changing the scope was acceptable and Violence from Prop 8 was introduced by an editor with what appeared to be some POV issues that I edited out, but the consensus stood to include "violence to" as well as "violence from". I won't get into edit war discussion, but will say that the accusasions from one group about another group that law enforcement show no connection to and state outright is simply opinion is therefore POV of the LDS church and is a BLP issue per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:BLPGROUP.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nominator himself says "This article, as created in 2007, was a fairly decent article". That seems to me like an argument to restore the good text from the 2007 version and thereby salvage this article. Sound arguments for deletion should argue that the topic is unencyclopedic or that the current text is hopelessly unsalvageable to the point that it would be more reasonable to rewrite the article from scratch. I don't see either of these arguments as applicable to the current article text and thus, we should improve this article rather than delete it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. I expect a lot of the material you re-added will eventually be removed (as much is cited directly to the Book of Mormon) but it's certainly a step in the right direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I really have agree that the article needs some work, but I hesitate to do much right now as the inclusion of material is in dispute. However, I feel an overarching source is mentioned by the nominator, "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith By Jon Krakauer". There is also "The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South By Patrick Q. Mason", and "Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia" which has a detailed section on Mormonism and violence within it's "issues" section. This source cites D. michael Quinn in it's "issues" section as well. There are actually more sources the amount is more than adequate for editors to use if needing overarching support for claims and properly attributed opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing comes of this AfD besides a clear direction for the article, I'll be more than satisfied. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Amadscientist and per Christianity and violence, which covers a lot of the same ground in a slightly different faith. Nominator fails to articulate a cause for deletion which couldn't be solved through the normal editing process. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ill-defined is not a policy. The nominator is using SYNTH out of context; wide scope of an article is not synth. Reaching a conclusion that is not supported directly by a single source, but by overreaching inference between two sources, is SYNTH. COATRACK, or any other rule for that matter, is only a matter for deletion if it is the nature of the article scope itself. What might be added later is a matter for the Talk page. I reject the nom's assertion that this material is covered elsewhere. It is most certainly not covered with the scope of the article here, and in any case, it is common for disparate elements to be gathered together from different articles, to a single article, in this way. Anarchangel (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate subject and well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve. I think the topic is important, and is well enough defined, though I don't think that some of the current content (such as the Proposition 8 nonviolent vandalism-related material) fits within the topic. This is an article about Mormonism and violence, not "Mormons and violence." Thus, it will not properly be a coatrack for all instances in which Mormons were either victims or perpetrators of violence. Also, while some of the content is touched upon in other articles, the material does not appear together in any other single article. COGDEN 09:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually, "ill-defined" could be, in theory, a serious AfD issue. The first sentence of WP:N is "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." An AfD on notability is a test not on an article title, but a test on an article topic. I just don't think that's a big issue here. Why? First, the title "Mormonism and violence" does, as COGDEN suggests, define a charter, and we have the early history of the article to confirm that. The relationship of Mormonism (as a faith, historically and theologically) to violence is a notable topic evidenced by sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The comments about the scope of the article have been quite helpful (Mormons vs. Mormonism) and I think this will give us enough direction that we can resolve the COATRACK and other issues. Thank you ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the overwhelming consensus in favor of "keep and improve", you might consider withdrawing your nomination and asking an admin to close this AFD as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Don't be discouraged, it's good to bring iffy articles to the attention of the wider community. The reason we have discussion is to air out the issues and seek a resolution. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A speedy keep would be great. I'm not quite sure how to request one, and I'm literally headed out the door on a camping trip, so if you wouldn't mind requesting it for me that would be great. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SciPlore MindMapping. The consensus is that the software itself is not yet notable, but that a merger with the predecessor software would be good until the time when/if it becomes notable in its own right PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Docear[edit]

Docear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear notable yet. Beta version of this software only released 50 days ago. Almost all references are to self-published or non-independent sources. Singularity42 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: typical WP:TOOSOON issue. The effect this software had on education, collaboration software, etc. is yet unknown, so the topic is not encyclopedic. I would prefer userfication if requested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOT delete: The reason is simple: The Software is actually only a major increment in development of the earlier SciPlore_MindMapping software, but from now on with a new name as stated in both articles. The question is, however, if it makes sense to maintain to distinct articles or better merge them under the new name. --AMH-DS (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge with SciPlore MindMapping like previous comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• NOT DELETE as Docear is the official successor of SciPlore MindMapping (which is a few years old). It could be argued to merge the articles. However, it could also be argued to keep both articles because Docear is offered by a new team, with new website etc. --DrDooBig (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: None of the keep !votes above (or "not delete") or merge !votes address the problems raised in my nomination: that notability cannot be verified as this software is still in the development stage, and the sources are almost all self published:

Reference 1: A 2011 paper released by the software's developers, and therefore not independent.

Reference 2: A blog release on the software's official website, and therefore self-published and not independent.

Reference 3: An irrelevant Latin dictionary definition of the word this software is named after, and therefore has nothing to do with notability.

Reference 4: A blog review, which is not a reliable source.

Reference 5: A 2002 academic paper having nothing to do with the notability of this software (developed almost a decade after this paper came out).

Reference 6: More information from the software's official website, and therefore self-published and not independent.

Simply put, this software is not notable yet. It may be notable soon, but it is not notable yet. Singularity42 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be notable to be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• NOT DELETE I am one of the developers of Docear and I added two references to increase the notability. In addition, I would like to emphasize that the paper you described as "not independent" was peer-reviewed and published on the most reputable conference in the field of literature management and digital libraries. I can hardly imagine a more reliable and noteworthy reference. In addition, Docear is the successor of SciPlore MindMapping, a software we are working on since many years. Docear is downloaded around 300 times a day and we received a 100,000 Euro grant for the development from the German Government (reference added). --JoeranB (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Traditionally, it is keep everybody, not not delete. Singularity42 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two new sources do not increase notability. The first is a October 2011 entry from a "News" section of a university department's website indicating that three people will be joining to work on Docear (and then going on to describe what Docear is). The second is a version of Docear was exhibited at the CeBIT trade show. What Wikipedia needs are reviews, etc. by third-party, reliable sources. So far, there are none. I fully expect there will be eventually, at which time Docear will merit a Wikipedia article - but not just yet. Singularity42 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And user feedback pages and YouTube videos (i.e. this diff) are not reliable sources either. Singularity42 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news website of that university was not only saying that three people will work for that university but is states that Docear is funded by the "BMWi" which is the German Ministry of Economics. I believe that if the German Government is funding a project this says quite a bit about the notability. Similarly, if a project exhibits on CeBIT, the world's largest computer expo, this shows that the software is worth being noticed. And btw. a few month ago we won a business plan contest with Docear http://www.fuer-gruender.de/blog/2012/03/gruender-ego-businessplanwettbewerb/ And regarding third party reviews of the software: The reference to CHIP http://www.chip.de/downloads/Docear_42643130.html is a review, made from one of Germany's most popular computer magazines. This magazine gave 4 out of 5 stars to Docear (see "Erster Eindruck"). I believe there is far less notable software than Docear that still has their own page. Just when I look at other reference managers I find software like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar%27s_Aid (no references at all) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pybliographer (only 2 self published references). And to be honest, I don't get the overall point. Even if there were no third party reviews, do you doubt that Docear has a decent amount of users? Or do you find the information provided in the wikipedia article too advertisement-like or unreliable? JoeranB (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My views about the number of users, etc. is irrelevant. Wikipedia has specific requirements for notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we have a) a reference to CHIP showing that a major computer magazine liked the software (third party review) b) an academic paper accepted by independent reviewers of a major conference who considered Docear to be important for the academic community and c) the grant of the German Government who considered Docear being worth to support it with 100,000 Euros. That's three sources that are reliable, verifiable and they pretty well show the notability of Docear. I hope you agree and go along with my suggestion to Keep the article. JoeranB (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd rather see it merged as suggested previously, and for the same reasons. I agree that it may have notability, per JoeranB, yet I hesitate to vote for keep. Merging makes more sense to me, especially as Docear was "originally created under the name SciPlore MindMapping". I think it makes the most sense to merge both articles into one, and redirect the other. Marikafragen (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nomination. No notability defined. When it starts receiving coverage in the media we can create a new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Docear, per WP:INCUBATE (providing there are editors willing to work on the article as and when references become available). -- Trevj (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Salvage any useful information for whatever article it should be merged to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marikafragen. Also, the notability guidelines seem to be applied rather selectively - I checked a few mindmapping tool articles at random, and almost none of them referenced to independent articles in reliable sources. --Tgr (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NAD. joe decker^{talk to me} 19:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Trojan[edit]

Notification Trojan (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)

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A search turns up no other usages of the term. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per nom and not a dict. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia's not here to be used to coin phrases. Ducknish (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow ^Talk 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeat[edit]

Deadbeat (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 have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability of this band. There are claims of the band being "very important" "due to their close wrok with Child Donation Organisation - WarChild" - but I haven't been able to turn up significant reliable source coverage of such a claim. But since there is a notability claim it is not an A7, and as such we are at AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawan - Page had been created over a disambig page - which I will now restore. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax by Anthony Bradbury (talk). JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scary movie 6[edit]

Scary movie 6 (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:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bloggy style musings. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete this is pure vandalism. Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Agreed- this is pure vandalism. Even if it wasn't, there are no official sources to back this up other than sources that are completely unreliable even by blog and fan standards. There's just nothing out there to suggest that this is a real possibility at this point in time. Even if there were one or two sources to back these claims up (which there aren't), it would still fail notability standards for future films.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words. Opinion is split three-ways between keep, projectify and delete. I read this as a consensus to (a) keep the material, but (b) not in main space, which means that moving it to project space is the outcome most congruent with this discussion.  Sandstein  05:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly misused English words[edit]

List of commonly misused English words (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)

Nomination requested on WT:AFD on behalf of User:86.148.153.31:

Accumulation of original research with no inclusion criteria other than random editors' personal opinions. Tagged for years with various issues, none of which show any sign of ever being fixed. Not encyclopedic material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Useful to readers and interesting, although it could be moved to Wikibooks. Extensive sourcing would not improve the article as most of these examples are common knowledge. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the Wikipedia namespace, as Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words, where it can keep Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings company. See also Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and Misc.  --Lambiam 16:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also a good alternative. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I dunno if a lot of it is really original research; we're allowed to include obvious prima-facie-true material such as "the sky is blue" without a cite. Looks to me as if the article is basically accurate, is useful for reference, is interesting, is reasonably well put together and tended, and has existed for awhile and has had many contributors. What's the big hurry to get rid of it? Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, per Lambiam. There is some excellent information that can be useful to many editors. No need to wipe out all the work that went into compiling it to satisfy a few purists who have problems with a few of the items. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no definitive authority for the supposed Standard English and there are numerous variations which may be considered correct. Representing particular usages as absolutely correct is not WP:NPOV and the manner of presentation seems contrary to several WP:NOT cases: dictionary; essay; opinion; advocacy; how-to; textbook;FAQ. Warden (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples really are not a matter of debate and do not require referring to a "definitive authority" (complementary-complimentary, desert-dessert, imply-infer, their-there-they're-there're, etc etc etc). Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cresix (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• move to wikipedia space per the above. These do not require sourcing. A dictionary is a WP:PRIMARY for all of this, this isnt bad grammar for the most part, its using the completely wrong word, so the "considered correct" argument is pretty far off base imo Gaijin42 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete I don't know what the correct solution is, but deleting it seems like destroying the village in order to save it. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete – I concur with the above. At worse we can follow Lambiam's suggestion. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Lambiam might be the best thing for it. I have a couple of mild objections to keeping it in article space, but concede that it may be useful to editors. My primary objection is that as an article it does need sources. As others have suggested above, standard usage and the frequency of misuse are empirical facts that, per WP policy, should be supported by reliable sources. Anyone who honestly believes that all English writers automatically understand facts about the English language well enough to comment without evidence is simply mistaken. Just as having a physical body does not automatically make me an expert on physiology, speaking a language does not make me an expert on grammar or usage. (Most of my other objections relate to NOTDICT, NOTHOW etc.) Cnilep (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's easy enough to find sources for this — Words You Thought You Knew: 1001 Commonly Misused and Misunderstood Words, for example. The trouble is that they are huge and their contents are debatable, being written for a particular time and place (see WP:ENGVAR). Such works are dictionaries of difficult words and that's the business of Wiktionary. If we wanted to do this seriously then the list would have thousands of entries and there would be conflicts about some of them (c.f. the 8 year war about yoghurt). But teaching English is not our job. Warden (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we are not talking about the unusual items that would be disputed at WP:ENGVAR; we are talking about the items that are commonly accepted without dispute, which is mostly what's in the list. And, to my knowledge, Wikitionary does not compile such lists, so Wikipedia is the place for it; and even if it was at Wiktionary, putting the list in Wikipedia mainspace is perfectly acceptable. Again, throw out the bathwater, but keep the baby. Cresix (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If not deleted, it needs to be pruned of various original research opinions as to what are "commonly misused English words." It is fair to require a reliable source for each item in the list. Edison (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be necessary if the article is moved to Wikipedia namespace. Cresix (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Edison (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Lambiam's suggestion above to move the article into Wikipedia namespace. If that is what's decided here, there would be no requirement for sourcing. Cresix (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have for many, many years tried to curate this list and prevent it from becoming a dumping ground for various grammar nazis to rant about their grammatical pet peeves. Most recently you can see such an example on the talk page concerning "invest". The page never gets better, really; only worse. Nohat (talk) 05:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of it could be sourced to reputable books on English usage/style/language, although I'm amazed at how little has been done - there's plenty of material online e.g. old editions of Fowler and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage. People should feel free to delete individual entries in the list if they're not sourced and seem dubious or contentious. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikipedia namespace per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 06:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This could be easily sourced to a variety of reliable sources and would be beneficial to readers as well as editors. WTucker (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuvraj Uday Veer[edit]

Yuvraj Uday Veer (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 of a not-really-popular Indian TV show. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following related page for same reason.

• Yuvrani Manyata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, per nom. Secret of success (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, as per nomination. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, as per nomination. --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are a few of these, may be better to make a group afd. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there is clearly a consensus that work needs to be done on the article, there is not a consensus to delete this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Campus of Kyushu University[edit]

Campus of Kyushu University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

unreferenced, seems to be made up entirely of trivial information and pictures, with little to merit an article Jac16888 ^Talk 13:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Have to agree with the nominator. Any really useful and properly sourced information could be added to the Kyushu University article, but this article has way too much incoherent and unsourced trivia. --DAJF (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maidashi ryokuchi created by the same machine translator probably needs a revisit too. --DAJF (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi, more than half supports me, not you, see it.I am troubled the possibility of reprisals.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hot cake does not seem to have a very good grasp of English, and has created several articles with poor translations, I've tried before to suggest they would be better off editing on the Japanese Wikipedia but it seems my advice was not taken--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.This article was added source and references later, by Hot cake syrup (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)), see it. It is a official document of Kyushu University. And machine translation system was not used. --Hot cake syrup (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot cake, please do not take this as an insult, but your English is just too poor for this Wikipedia, why not edit in your first language [27]?
• 英語版ウィキペディアへの投稿はいつでも歓迎いたしますが、残念ながら今回Hot cake syrupさんに執筆いただいた英文は英語版ウィキペディアの水準を満たしておりません。もしよろしければ、日本語版ウィキペディアの方へ投稿していただければ幸いです。ウィキペディア･プロジェクトへの参加ありがとうございます。--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. I think deep inside your kind man, but you just doesn't know how to express it.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford,Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...so on.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Potentially notable, but unfortunately the author's style of writing is not understandable; any rewrite would be a completely new article, so keeping-until-rewriting wouldn't be of any benefit. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan canvassing by article author[edit]

The author of the article nominated for deletion has been warned for inappropriately canvassing editors (here and here), who coincidentally voted "Keep" in an AfD of another article created by the same author. --DAJF (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked wise opinion in my note for native trusty friends, it is not a case for concern. Actually I cheese off DAJF's stalking behavior. Ah… See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi --Hot cake syrup (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot cake syrup (talk • contribs)

• Keep - features on Cultural Property registers, ie "notable" (have added the RS) - and also less of the ad hominem; I don't know whether the article could be organized as a table (or several, one per campus): Building - Function - Construction Date - Architect - Area - Comments - Image (or something like that); presumably the User was intending to fill out the other campus sections before this distraction; also, don't know whether the sections could be related to this list of campuses? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it notable? Except for the fact that these buildings are part of the university why are they important? It's just a list of buildings with information such as square footage and age, what I would call trivial at best--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Maculosae tegmine lyncis. Every Universities has its own history, like the Parthenon means ancient Greek civilization, Colosseum means ancient Roma, the buildings are exactly what the history itself.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There might be just enough references and information here to maybe meet the minimum requirement for WP:GNG, but the article will need to be entirely rewritten, most of the article appears to be a list of statistical information and random images, hardly resembling a proper article, If it can be rewritten into a series of paragraphs with specific sections proclaiming its history, achievements and notability there is a chance it could be salvaged, but as of now it is on the fine line between usefull and pointless, I am mostly neutral. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I should like to thank you for your useful proposals and agree with entirely re-formation, please I would be grateful for your support. Thanks you.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is a likely argument for notability based on the notability of the university and the fact some of the structures are designated cultural properties (though the "The Third Residential Complex for Foreigners" cited in the lede is not yet included in the list of buildings). There are also many "Campus of" articles on Wikipedia, some of which, such as Campus of the University of Arkansas, are even more sketchy than this (and that article has been around for six years). There is also the poorly titled Constructions of the University of Tokyo, which in spirit is essentially like this article. Such precedents are themselves not grounds for keeping the article, but it underlines that probably the primary argument offered by others against the article is that the English is bad. Yes, it is, but bad writing--which is nevertheless comprehensible--is not listed as one of the reasons in WP:DEL-REASON. I have tried to work on Hot Cake Syrup's articles in the past (including trying to change the title of this article), and would second others in encouraging that user to refrain from adding such long articles until he or she is more confident with English. But for the time being, this is a comprehensible article on a basically notable subject. It just needs work. Michitaro (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very major university, and it is highly appropriate that there be a separate article--much better than what we sometimes see, an attempt to write an article on every possible building. Combination articles like this are to be encouraged. Additional sources would be desirable, but they're not ones I would be able to find. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per G1. RA (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glossop North End Starting XI[edit]

Glossop North End Starting XI (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:NOTE Yasht101 13:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Event not satisfying, essentially, WP:PERSISTENCE. joe decker^{talk to me} 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sam Riddall[edit]

Death of Sam Riddall (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 event, fails WP:GNG Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An unfortunate hit-and-run death but no lasting coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cant be denied that this hit and run recieved alot of press when it happened and also the events after the crash. Ofcourse the case dont recieved as much coverage when the case is closed but that doesnt mean that the previous coverage becomes insignificant. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. These guidelines trump WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. While it seems to have been covered widely at the time of the occurence, it doesn't warrent a wikipedia article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A sad event, but one which has generated little interest or coverage except at the time of occurence, and which has had no lasting effect or significance. None of the principals are notable, and the event itself was, sad to say, not out of the ordinary, especially in terms of lasting impact. Does not meet WP:GNG. Just because something has value as a news story doesn't mean it has value as the subject of an encyclopedia article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I say lose it because it is a very sad event! 22dragon22burn (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and this doesn't seem to have aroused the interest of people who publish in stable media such as books and journals. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case has recived national covarage so an article on wikipedia can exists. All case recived much attention in the firsts day after the fact and less after one year.User:Lucifero4
• Delete - nothing particularly historically notable about this story. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrosion (compilation album)[edit]

Corrosion (compilation album) (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 coverage of this album. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having a hard time verifying it even exists outside Amazon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete: Like the other editors, I have found no substantial information on this album except on Amazon. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The deletes say this is WP:ONEEVENT, the keeps say he is sufficiently important to that event that he meets the ONEEVENT criteria for an individual's standalone article. However, no clear consensus was reached, so I am closing as No consensus, without prejudice against a re-nomination. I would suggest that if this is renominated, interested WikiProjects be notified, and relevant DelSort categories be added to the new AfD, to enable a fuller discussion to be possible. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman Orfalli[edit]

Abdul Rahman Orfalli (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:ONEEVENT. Subject hasn't actually done anything notable (the article itself makes a barely-credible claim of importance as "one of the first organisers", and so I don't think a speedy is appropriate). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His death was widely reported, and thus he would seem notable. I do wish we could find some information about apart from the fact that he was one of the first organizers and that he was killed though. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yes, it is just one event we know of, but if he, as reported, was one of the first organizers, then it's more. I think we need to see if we can get more information about him before deciding to delete the article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do think that argument is entirely invalid. "He hasn't done anything notable that we know of but he may have done tons of stuff that was never recorded" could be said of any subject nominated at AfD. Until sources turn up to justify any speculation over what he may have done, we should stick to the facts, which are that he was a man notable only for being killed in a protest. Thus, per ONEEVENT, we should redirect to Syrian uprising (2011–present). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was one of the primary organizers of the Syrian Uprising, and is noted for this.--Goltak (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep -- This nomination claims this individual is only known for "one event" -- which is transparently untrue. I'd like us to know more about this individual -- but we do know:

1. He was one of the original organizers of the original "Arab Spring" protests in 2011-03;
2. The ancient regime captured him and tortured him for five months;
3. He was killed in shelling in 2012-03

That is THREE events. Nominations for deletion that claim one event should only be placed on individuals who were truly only known for one event. Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's one event. He organised it, and was captured and killed during it, but it was all part of the same event. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a wise guy who claimed, tongue-in-cheek, that we should merge the article on Tony Blair into the article on George W. Bush, on "one event" grounds -- as "no one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported Bush's Iraq invasion." There were headlines that backed up this interpretation of Blair's role -- some critics called him "George Bush's lapdog".

  Let's be frank here -- your presumably genuinely held position and the tongue-in-cheek mocking argument of that wise guy are not that dissimilar. No offense, but it seems to me your conflation of these three events into one event reflects a POV judgment on your part that the efforts of those working for political reform in Arab countries lack importance.

  You haven't explained WHY' you do not recognize five months of torture as a separate event from his death in the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians. One interpretation of your position is that you think the Syrian government is entitled to employ torture and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians -- civilians who were not entitled to seek political change in the first place -- so everything that happened to them was their fault. Is this why you characterize his torture and his death through the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians as the same event as his leadership role in the original demonstrations? Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, I obviously just think the Syrian government is entitled to torture its civilians; that's clearly my rationale for nominating an article for deletion on wikipedia. That's definitely not an absurd assessment of my motives. Hell, the only thing I can't understand is why the Syrian government isn't torturing everyone else in the middle east; I mean it's clearly their prerogative. In fact, my name is Bashar al-Assad. _{Note: in case you can't tell, the preceding comment was not intended to be taken seriously} Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - per Goltak. WP:1E envisages "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." A similar example in this context would be Mohamed Bouazizi whose self-immolation was a single event that nevertheless precipitated the Arab Spring. Nomination strikes me as vexatious judging on the nominator's contribution history and contributions here. Charles04 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back so soon? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Disingenuous use of sources. No independent verification, and therefore does not meet GNG. The article author, by the way, has also lifted word-for-word what the sources cited say about the topic, but has ignored the majority of the content of said articles. However, when there is only one source (the opposition group themselves), that is not independent (the reporter having simply repeated what was said by the group with no followup), which supports his leadership role and makes the statement of torture (none of which was at all the focus of the article in question), there is simply nothing to support inclusion. I also object strongly to the language above insinuating that either WP or its authors are (or should be) making moral judgments in any direction to determine article inclusion. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - It's hard to disagree with Basalisk or MSJapan here. Charles 04 right I think to point out what he does, but Orfalli really isn't as notable as Mohamed Bouazizi. One solution would be to comment out his article and redirect, so that at a later date the article can be restored if he attains a greater degree of posthumous fame. Best would be to redirect to the March 2011 timeline (when Orfalli was killed), but I see in fact he's actually not mentioned there (edit needed?) I do rather strongly endorse MSJapan's final remark by the way. I'm thinking, for example, of the Iranian Revolution, which received a very largely sympathetic reception in the Western media at the time and one can imagine the same kind of detailed timelines and so on we see now in Syria if there had been a Wikipedia at the time. That is not at all to say a sober and NPOV account of the uprising is out of place (how useful that would have been today for historians of the Iranian revolution) but we do need to be careful about partisanship. David Osborne 2 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MFortune[edit]

MFortune (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 can only find sources about mFortune that have been published in specialist publications like Casino City Times or Blackjack Champ, and so I don't think it has the depth of coverage necessary for a Wikipedia article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete failing WP:N & WP:OR. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete: No evidence of substantial coverage by independent sources. Coverage limited to publications with a very small and very narrow readership base. Outside of that base, it has no informational value, and thus, no encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Serious WP:V issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpur polytechnic institute[edit]

Sherpur polytechnic institute (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 find any references from WP:Reliable sources that this institute actually exists, and none are given in the article to support the claims of notability per WP:ORG. Unclear from the photo provided whether it's actually open yet. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor. Scopecreep (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The school exists, see [28], [29]. However, the content needs to be carefully checked, given the other contributions of the creator. I can't find an official website of the institute, which is quite strange (our article claims that the school is attended by 900,000 students). Their Facebook profile was created by the same person as the article here. I would say delete (for now), as the current state of the article is unreliable. But I'm willing to change my opinion if someone provides better and reliable evidence of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete: Something is majorly wrong here. A top-level engineering school with 900,000!!!! students that doesn't even have its own website, and has next to no coverage in relaible independent sources, none of which can be considered remotely substantial???? ZERO hits on Google Scholar???? What little information that is available on Google can be mostly traced back to a single individual (Robin Hossain aka Robinsabbir), who is the person responsible for creating this WP artcle, as well. Dubious to the extreme. IF this school exists (and I cannot rule out that it is a hoax or fraud), it is certainly not what the article states that it is, to the point that it is essentially a hoax or fraud. Only God knows, because of the absolute dearth of information in independent sources. In any case, it is not a bona fide accredited institution of higher learning. Most likely a madrassa (Muslim religious school) posing as one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Daily Star would seem to be a reliable source, so if it says that an SPI student was kidnapped, we can assume that SPI exists. However, we'd need solid coverage of the institution, and we need to show much more than that it exists — the creator's obviously wrong statement of nearly a million students casts everything else in the article into doubt. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Phir Subah Hogi. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phir Subha Hogi[edit]

Phir Subha Hogi (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)

Reason Jay.99.smart (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC) The correct page for this movie exists which is 'Phir_Subah_Hogi'[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29. Snotbot  t • c »  12:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep A 54-year-old, long pre-internet, Hindi film,[30] with Indian notables Raj Kapoor, Mala Sinha, Rehman, Mubarak, Leela Chitnis, Nana Palsikar, Jagdish Sethi, Tun Tun, and Kamal Kapoor. The film was noteworthy enough back in 1958 [31] to have made it into the enduring record,[32][33][34] and we do not expecting ongoing and continued coverage six decades after a film was released, we can protect the cinematic history of India. Sources are available, both in English and in Hindi. The stub and Wikipedia will benefit from expansion... not by deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (Changed to delete and redirect. See below)[reply]
  • This was nominated for deletion because the article already exists at Phir Subah Hogi. This AfD should just be closed and the article should be redirected. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahhh... the correct titled article is newer that the mis-titled one, but has more content and context. Changing to delete and redirect. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phir Subah Hogi. Speedy Delete. While this is the older article, it is in far poorer shape than the newer one which was created under the correct title.[35] As it is the older, an A10 speedy does not quite apply, however the G6 techincal deletion does apply, IE: "...also includes pages unambiguously created in error and/or in the incorrect namespace". Had the author of the new been aware of the old, he might have expanded it and then done a move to the correct name. As I noted above, both slightly different name spellings for this one film are sourcable, so I opt for setting a redirect to prevent unneccessary recreations of an existing article. As I have opined at this AFD, I really should not be the one to perform the close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Linux[edit]

Ark Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Notability tag has been there since 2009, searching online yielded no reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of Ark Linux; subject fails WP:GNG. SudoGhost 12:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is a real distribution, but there seems to be nothing particularly noteworthy about it. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject is clearly non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the above. Is there some "List of Linux Distributions" that would serve as a redirect target? Since this is a real distribution, it might be a reasonable search term, so a Redirect makes sense here as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Talk:List of Linux distributions seems to follow the standard at several other "List of ..." software articles, where entries meet the first criteria of WP:LSC (each entry meeting the notability criteria). If there's no article and no reliable sources for Ark Linux, it very likely doesn't meet that criteria. - SudoGhost 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because there are a couple notable features, as evidenced by the reviews. There aren't any other distros (that I know of) that can be installed in as little as four clicks, nor any that offer a Tetris clone while the packages are installing. They also provide their custom "Mission Control" control center. A few (not all) of the reviews are linked to on the DistroWatch page (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ark), while others may be found via Google. ~Piki (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petite Meller[edit]

Petite Meller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable fails WP:ARTIST the only reference is in Hebrew and I didn't find her name . The article was also created by sock so WP:DENY also applies. Shrike (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29. Snotbot  t • c »  11:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This was created by Gal deren d (talk · contribs), a sock of Nnimrodd (talk · contribs) who was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Looking through the IPs in the history, it is self-evident that 194.90.198.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 94.174.91.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were operated by the banned user. Aside from this simple undoing of one of the sock's edits, every other edit looks minor or is a bot or maintenance edit. I'm saying this instead of doing it so it's not unilateral, but it would be reasonable to speedy this per G5 in my opinion. WilliamH (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero news hits. Even looking under her real name Sivan Meller doesn't produce anything, although I did see quite a number of blog references to her as a member of the band Terry Poison - which, when I quickly looked that up, wasn't notable enough to have any news hits either. Mabalu (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Lame (WP:SK 2). Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood Hungama[edit]

Bollywood Hungama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete - web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject CrazyAboutBollywood 10:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29. Snotbot  t • c »  10:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This page is completely under the speedy deletion criteria. following reasons are: G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion, A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content), Also check the G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement and the give the reference of duplicate content detector whether it is comes under the G12 criteria or not?

--CrazyAboutBollywood 12:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• _{striking repetitive !vote by nominator.—SpacemanSpiff 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

What line is the article looks like an advertisement to you dear? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - totally notable and the article justifies its existence, might need expansion though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough references available.Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fans are so much better than crazy people! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Please Read criteria G11 and and A7, the article must be deleted.

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance.--CrazyAboutBollywood 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)--CrazyAboutBollywood 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)

• _{striking repetitive !vote by nominator.—SpacemanSpiff 22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
• Comment Discussing speedy deletion criteria is not relevant in an AfD discussion, especially since the article has been nominated for speedy deletion but the reviewing administrator declined the speedy. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' - This article has not sufficient sources. Alexa ranking is self service website any one can create account with it. This is not reliable source and another 2 given sources is not sufficient, its looking like press releases. In both the references, company person are saying the statement and its look like press releases.--Aman Rajveer 05:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanrajveer (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Article depicts a site which is reliable for use as per our guidelines, but reliability does not automatically bestow notability. The site has been latched on to passing mentions in tons of reputed websites which have also used their reports directly or indirectly, but notability demands that significant coverage and some material about the site in third-party sources is necessary. After a lengthy search, I could find only two references (other than the ones in the article) (1 and 2). I doubt if these are competent enough to contain the article and on par with WP:WEB. From what I can comprehend, this is a case of WP:BARE where the article just seems on border between notability and non-notability, making its contingency inconceivable beyond WP:TWOPRONGS. But again, what is competent and what is not is again subjective. If more sources could be found, the article's stance would escalate, but until then, it remains as a mere paradigm of bare notability. Secret of success (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not particularly difficult to find coverage in secondary sources for IndiaFM, including an article in a peer-reviewed acadmic journal using IndiaFM as a case study. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator, CrazyAboutBollywood, has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Amanrajveer. All of the "delete" comments above are from one or other of those two accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Very much notable in, for and among Bollywoodist. This tells you how notable the site is. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site is notable but the link you provided for the searches contains most of the results from Indiafm itself. :P Secret of success (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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