![]() |
< 12 October | 14 October > |
---|
The result was redirect to Gerry Rafferty. MBisanz talk 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A woman who was briefly engaged to Gerry Rafferty before his death, but never married him. Got a little news coverage when she tried to sue her way into his will. Being known for one event is insufficient for notability, per WP:BLP1E. Also, her association with Rafferty is insufficient for notability, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. She also does artwork, but there is insufficient WP:RS to establish her notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Qworty (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her awards being for scene awards. No substantial coverage from reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The interview is from a self-published site. Historically this page has been subject of multiple BLP violations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her award being a scene award. No substantial coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO due to her nominations being for scene awards. No substantial coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. MBisanz talk 20:28, 24 October 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)) . |
The gist of this nomination is that while the books have sold well, neither Founders nor Survivors have received enough coverage in reliable and independent sources to show notability enough to pass WP:NBOOK. I'd previously redirected them to the main article, but those redirects were reverted. There was an argument that making the NYT Bestseller list extended notability enough for an article, but at most the NYT list is seen more as a trivial source and not really anything that would show notability enough for an entry. Of both articles, the only sources out there are for primary sources such as the author's blog and a link to the NYT bestseller listings. If anyone can find sources that are in reliable places, I'm open to suggestion but ultimately the coverage for these specific books (as opposed to coverage of the author as a whole) is not enough to show notability and hasn't been in sources that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons above:
Keep: The author is one of the most notable voices in the preparedness community and Founders has been one of the best selling novels in the survivalist/preparedness genre. Gerald Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.212.119 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC) — 184.56.212.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
James Wesley Rawles has written a trilogy of which Founders is the third volume to appear. Rather than being sequential in nature, instead they tell parallel stories of life after the crunch. They are highly educational because they contain tons of information that would be useful to anyone seeking to survive after a societal collapse. These books have all been best sellers. I am astounded that anyone would consider deleting any articles about these important books. Some one must have a political agenda that they are trying to fulfill. These articles need to stay. Sugarcube73 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
−
The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. Rabid inclusionists even agree that this person is not notable by our standards; nothing good can come out of this AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication in published third-party reliable sources that the individual concerned meets WP:Notability (people) guidelines, either as an author or for any other reasons. Seems to be an efficient self-publicist, hence the abundance of self-authored puffery, but nothing else of any real significance - despite attempts to manufacture notability by synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject clearly meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and WP:Notability (people) guidelines.
Exclusive publication about Patni with reference of Books and other achievements
Latest published Biography - Dr Ujjwal Patni is a dentist turned self-help author of 6 books published in more than 12 languages, a popular motivational speaker
Latest Published Interview - The Times of India weekly speaking tree print edition. A dentist turned motivational speaker and corporate trainer, with more than two lakh trainees across 100 cities, Dr Patni is the celebrated author of six self-help books in 12 languages. Here’s an exclusive chat with Guinness world record achiever Dr Ujjwal Patni:.
Latest published news about review of Patni's book Power Thinking in India Today - http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/238521-1340137375-india-today-recommends-power-thinking-by-top-trainer-author-dr-ujjwal-patni.htmlThe book in light is Power Thinking authored by Top Indian author and corporate trainer Dr Ujjwal Patni. Power Thinking
All the books are with ISBN numbers and widely available in multiple languages. Just for reference, all the top online sellers show Patni's book on their catalogue. Some are presented below.
Books on Flipkart, India's top online store shows Patni's 14 Books in multiple languages [20][21]
Books on Amazon [25]
Hundreds of other evidence are present in different language on world wide web. Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk)— Mahaveerji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Your first comment - Biography' - Intentionally ? the full introduction of the author is conceded and only few selected words were presented by you. Successstories[28] is a global reputed website that has published credible biographies of achievers across the world. Instead of discussing a single line about Patni's biography, you are more concerned about the author's bio. Pls correlate the contents with other available evidences. Few other lines conceded by you about the worthy contributor are -
' Your second comment - Interview' - Instead of questioning the content, Why are you continuously questioning the credibility of India's topmost media house to delete Patni is not clear. The Times of India Speaking Tree (English weekly) is a weekly newspaper that caters to the reader seeking any form of wellbeing of the mind or body.
' Your third comment about online pr news' - I would suggest you to correlate the content with numerous evidences available, instead of doubting on everybody's intent. The news is about the review of Ujjwal Patni's book Power Thinking on India Today which is a highly prestigious weekly Hindi magazine of India. There is no extraordinary claim in the news about Patni. If you are really responsible researcher , i would suggest you to get this prestigious Hindi review translated and you would surely take back your deletion nomination.
' Your fourth comment - I sincerely thank you for accepting that Patni writes books. Let the notability issue to be evaluated by unbiased, neutral and ethical Wikipedians.
Thanks Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk)— Mahaveerji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Serious concern
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was: Film not to be released until next year. Eeekster (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to give the reasons for my "delete" closure. Basically, the !votecount is 7 vs. 2, so in that regard the consensus is clear. As for the opinions being policy based or not (lending them more weight than the pure votecount), it basically boils down to "he is notable enough" and "no he isn't", which is a personal opinion, not a precise science (in borderline cases). The opinions come from well established editors, not SPAs or socks or other more "dubious" sources, so I see no reason to give any of them more or less weight. This all means that in the end, the consensus is that Kramm is for the moment not notable enough to have an article here. Fram (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So there's been an informal deletion discussion on the talk page of the article for about the past week or so. Based on a thorough examination of the article and the arguments on the talk page, I've come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted and thus I'll make the formal nomination.
First, the article does not, I feel, pass the general notability critera. I can only find two good secondary sources: Senate Report News article on research. Both sources are independent of the subject, but neither is "significant coverage": the latter is only tangentially about the subject of the article and the former merely quotes from his writing, so again, not directly about the subject of the article. Of course, the other notability criterion is professors and academics. Let's go through these individually:
With all of the above evidence, my inclination is to delete, but I welcome the input of better sources I and others may have missed that would save the article from deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In there paper "Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact" Kramm and Dlugi (2011) stated:
"The example 2.1 of Halpern et al., for instance, which is dealing with two heat reservoirs at different temperatures that exchange energy and entropy by radiation is falsified because the magnitude of the entropy flux emitted by a black body is given by Js = 4/3 σ T3 [5], where T is the actual surface temperature and σ = 5.67 • 10-8 W·m–2·K–4 is Stefan’s constant. Halpern et al. not only ignored Planck’s [5] results, but also those of many peer-reviewed papers published during the past four decades (e.g., [6-9]). In addition, even the wrong units for irradiances and entropy fluxes used in their 2009-version and already criticized by, at least, one of the reviewers were not replaced in their printed version by the correct ones. If it is possible to publish such a physically inadequate comment, we have to acknowledge that the discipline of climatology has lost its rational basis."
Arthur Smith was a co-author of Halpern et al. (2010). Thus, it is not surprising to me that especially Halpern tries to attack Kramm under the belt line.
On the talk page, Smith argued in a manner that is typical for him. He cited Prall's work even though it is rather senseless. Kramm is a theoretical meteorologist. His work is mainly related to the physics and chemistry of the atmospheric boundary layer and atmospheric energetics, but not to climate. From this point of view it plays no role whether he is listed by Prall or not. Prall claimed that Kramm has written 29 papers to climate. This is highly incorrect. To my best knowledge, his first peer-reviewed paper on climate was published in 2010.
According to Google Scholar, Kramm's h index is 19, but not 12 as reported here. In his PNAS paper J.E. Hirsch (2005), a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego and the father of the h index, argued:
"Based on typical h and m values found, I suggest (with large error bars) that for faculty at major research universities, h ≈ 12 might be a typical value for advancement to tenure (associate professor) and that h ≈ 18 might be a typical value for advancement to full professor. Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. ........ Scientists working in nonmainstream areas will not achieve the same very high h values as the top echelon of those working in highly topical areas."
In my opinion, theoretical meteorology is such a non-mainstream area. Although the scientific impact cannot easily be assessed by such measures like h and g indices, these measures are, by far, more objective than the highly subjective meaning of Halpern and Smith. I must assume that Halpern and friends try to re-establish "Deutsche Physik" (it means Aryan physics). Mmarque (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, you are completely wrong. Theoretical meteorology is, by far, not a mainstream discipline. The only journal, for instance, dealing with dynamical meteorology is Tellus Series A, a Swedish journal. This journal also publishes papers in dynamical oceanography. What theoretical meteorology means is reflected by the textbooks of Riegel (1992), Dutton (1995) and Zdunkowsky & Bott (2003). I do not believe that you have an adequate education to understand these textbooks. Thus, what is your motivation to make false claims? Mmarque (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing someone's wrong claim is not a personal attack.Mmarque (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, Professor Dr. Foken is engaged in micrometeorology, but not in theoretical meteorology. This means that he is engaged in the field of applied meteorology. Theoretical meteorology is based on theoretical Physics. Please take a look into the textbook of Zdunkowski and Bott (2003), Dynamics of the Atmosphere. This textbook stands for theoretical meteorology. By the way, Kramm and Foken published several papers together. I found that these papers are listed in the References of Foken's textbook. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joel B. Lewis, I wonder what your qualification is. If you are this post-doc at the UMN, then it would be better for you to be quiet. According to MathSciNet, the number of papers published by a Joel B. Lewis is six. His field is number theory. Kramm is also mentioned in MathSciNet because he published some papers in the Journal of the Calcutta Mathematical Society. Kramm's fields are also listed in MathSciNet: Fluid mechanics, geophysics, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, and structure of matter. Kramm and Herbert (2006), for instance, derived various blackbody radiation laws using principles of dimensional analysis. One of them is Planck's radiation law. If you are this UMN guy, do you really believe that you are able to assess Kramm's work or his scientific reputation? Thus, tell me what your motivation is? Your behavior is that of an aisle sitter who only had assessed a nativity play of a middle school long time ago. Mmarque (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I had a phone call with Kramm. His doctoral degree correctly reads Dr. rer. nat. (it means doctor of natural science). He earned his doctoral degree in meteorology (Magna cum laude) at the Department of Physics of the Humboldt-University of Berlin, one of Germany's leading universities. He earned a prediploma and diploma in meteorology at the University of Cologne. These degrees are equivalent to the American degrees B.S. and M.S. This means that Kramm is completely educated in meteorology. He has also a diploma in industrial engineering earned at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences. This diploma is ranking higher than a bachelor degree in engineering, but there is no equivalent certificate. The German title reads Diplom-Ingenieur (Dipl.-Ing., see Engineer's degree). Mmarque (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please recognize that the Facebook references I introduced a couple of months ago are related to Kramm's outside interests. These are ballroom dancing and naval history. Kramm and his wife are excellent ballroom dancers and well known for various dance performances in Interior Alaska. Many manuscripts submitted to journals and eventually published are first uploaded to the arXiv of the Cornell University. Some physics journals use arXiv in their review processes. I assume that during the last couple of days the number of references increased by more than 70 percent. One of the new ones is the reference to the arXiv manuscript of Hansen et al. (2011). This manuscript was obviously published by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011. Recently, I realized that one of Kramm's manuscripts uploaded to arXiv is the reply to a comment written by two German climate skeptics with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), a CFACT organisation. Obviously, Kramm is the target of both the AGW activists and the CFACT-sponsored climate skeptics. Mmarque (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The paper of Stockwell et al. (1997) is a book article. It has been cited by many authors. Meanwhile, their articles are often more cited because they were published in journals. Unfortunately, the SCI lists this paper in nine different ways. It is not included in the computation of the h-index. Measures like h-index and g-index were introduced because the number of citations is a weak measure for the scientific impact. By the way, the paper of Stockwell et al. (1997) is not listed in Kramm's list of his ten favorites among his articles. Several other papers authored or co-authored by Kramm are not considered. The Contribution of Atmospheric Physics, for instance, the leading German journal in the matter of theoretical meteorology, was merged with the Meteorologische Zeitschrift, but the papers published by the Contribution of Atmospheric Physics are completely ignored by SCI. Mmarque (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I received two nice messages.
These messages reflect what the goal of these users is. Mmarque (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Globus (music). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP. PROD was accidentally declined by someone who was removing all the unsourced cruft from the article pbp 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No notability for this MLM company is asserted beyond an Alexa rating, which to the best of my knowledge is deprecated as evidence of notability because of google-bombing by porn sites. Google News/Books return no useful results and no reliable sources were found upon a search. Ubelowme U Me 19:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was page moved to Antelope Township, Franklin County, Nebraska. Non-admin closure. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This town does not exist. GNIS never heard of it. Google search turns up nothing except this Wikipedia page. There is a Antelope County, Nebraska, but not this town. A redirect to the county would be a suitable alternative to deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current version of this article's prose, it clearly appears to fail the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO. It also appears that the only thing standing in the way of a valid CSD A7 nomination, is the fact that BLP PROD has been declined due to the presence of a single MTV.co.uk source. Though MTV is generally regarded as WP:RS, this particular source-piece says very little and appears to be of rather poor quality. After thralling through more than twenty-five pages of Google search results and finding nothing but user-supplied videos, free music downloads, blogs, social media and other self published paraphernalia, I've decided to bring it to AfD. Common sense tells me that the subject is a potential up-and-coming rapper, who's not quite ready for Wikipedia prime time. -- WikHead (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography with insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. one keep is based on WP:CRYSTAL. SarahStierch (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:RLN as has not yet played first grade. Prod was contested. Mattlore (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No substantial 3rd party sources that discuss the subject. Only source cited is his NAACP profile. Google News searches bring up results where he is quoted as part of his job but none that are specifically about him. Fails WP:BASIC aspects of WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This biography has been deleted several times, through means other than AFD, over the past few years, but the subject appears to have repeatedly re-created his own biography. As it stands, none of the sources appear reliable, and the subject appears to fall seriously short of our standards for inclusion. Hopefully, a conclusive AFD can resolve the question of whether or not this subject warrants inclusion, so that (barring a significant increase in his notable activity) we can deal more quickly with further edits and re-creations. AGK [•] 18:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined A7 nomination. Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable boxer. Boxrec currently ranks him 58th among Mexican welterweights and 435th in the world. He won a youth world championship, but youth titles generally aren't considered notable. The article also gives a list of notable fighters he's lost to, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MMA fighter with one fight. Coverage is routine sports reporting and subject obviously fails WP:MMANOT. This article is clearly WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MMA fighter with only 2 fights (1-1), none for a top tier organization. Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quek Kim Hock but CSD was denied, although he lost his only fight since that nomination. Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MMA fighter with only 4 fights (2 wins, 2 losses), none for a top tier organization. The only sources are routine sports coverage. Fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable short story/web content with no evidence of notability. A Google search provides nothing that would prove the notability of this story. PROD deleted by article creator. Lugia2453 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This long-suffering page is unwieldly, poorly-maintained, and of dubious value. I don't expect any of those characteristics to change. Serving a similar purpose, much more effectively, is Category:Viruses. The page nominated for deletion is full of WP:redlinks, most of which are of no value and which include all of the vandalism that plagues this page. Scray (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big mess of an article. May not be notable, but even if notable, this article has self-promotion and copyright issues written all over it. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost totally unsourced. Everything the term is used to refer to has a real article (eg. Catholic marriage or LGBT rights opposition), but the term has enough uses that it isn't a suitable redirect, and is infrequently enough used that there's no point in a disambiguation page for people searching on it. The almost total lack of sources also indicates against a merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable entity that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to press releases and other fringe material, trivial mentions, and other things that cannot demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. I tagged this article for speedy deletion as I found absolutely zero evidence to confirm the record label exists and there is no Internet presence (official website, social networking profile, etc.).
Topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Record label which has no notable artists or releases. Cloudz679 09:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Alley#United Kingdom. Michig (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NOT#DICT Curb Chain (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability requirements but as written is overly promotional. Eeekster (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Eric Flint. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for this title and there are no reliable sources that show that this book passes WP:NBOOK. I had initially redirected it, but it's been challenged under the premise of "it exists", so to be fair I'm bringing it here. Unless we have 4+ reliable sources suddenly get published, I'm going to doubt that this will pass notability guidelines anytime soon. The author is notable, the overall series is notable, but this particular entry? Not notable outside of the series enough to merit its own article at this point in time. If anyone can find sourcing for it I'm open to alternatives, but there's a dearth of RS here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference of the article is to the author, thereby no other sites appeared on the article as a reference. No significance, just of a woman that is a blogger on Tumblr but yet, no significance was asserted. Mediran talk|contribs 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO and the general notability guidelines Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Geocentrism. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the fundamental rule for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:42. In this case, I think that the vast majority of this article is original research, relying on primary sources that believe in geocentrism, or stating things that cannot be verified. A lot of the claims are made in the article that do not seem to have independent sources. I also note that Wikipedia's guidelines of fringe theories seem to say that the topic must be treated in a serious way by non-believers in reliable publications, but there are none referenced to the article and in my search this morning I found almost no texts that referred to this idea as a legitimate movement. Junjunone (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
65.128.191.161 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. WP guidelines state that "ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight" and "WP summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". This implies a more concise article, properly written to avoid creating support or undue weight... not deletion. And some articles on WP may simply be longer than others, or included, without necessarily implying a certain level of importance over another.
For example, an article about a U.S. president versus an article about a Star Wars book character, or something else that's really esoteric.
Sources and Undue Weight. WP says "[it] is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." This seems to support deletion at first glance. However, note this important caveat: "Many encyclopedic topics can be evaluated from a number of different perspectives, and some of these perspectives may make claims that lack verification in research, that are inherently untestable, or that are pseudoscientific. [...] Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. [...] Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality."
With this in mind, the article is certainly not presenting its theories as facts, nor in anywhere the equal weight of modern consensus. The opening paragraph details exactly how the theory is viewed, by whom, in what context, and with what weight (specifically, that it is directly opposed to scientific consensus, and it has strong ties to theological beliefs, and if you went to preschool, common sense clearly reveals just how popular the view is). It instead presents what its adherents believe, and how these issues conflict with modern science, without biased words making it seem as though the conflict is considered to be one on equal ground.
It's true that there won't be many scholarly sources available in support of a fringe belief, but that's by nature. WP doesn't require this though, UNLESS the text of the article is clearly in support of the theory. WP only requires sources ABOUT the subject, it's believers, notable issues, etc. For example, sources which:
Similar Example. Scientology is a relatively low-adherent, modern-science-rejected belief that's given many long pages on WP. Do you know anyone personally who believes in Scientology? Can you get an accurate figure of Scientologists? Can you find any scholarly articles that seriously support dianetics, thetans, etc? Does Scientology deserve an article X number of pages long, which implies undue weight? No, but the belief is culturally significant, especially with its legal issues, and that's why it's included.
Conclusion. I believe modern geocentricity properly adheres to WP guidelines, and warrants inclusion. It exists (has believers), and it has notable links to other major areas of science and theology, mainstream and otherwise. We can't make a deletion call simply based on what we believe to be the number of believers or the absurdity of the belief.
As for the article itself, it does seem to be pretty messy, containing some uncited, biased, and cluttered information. But those things can be fixed. Maybe what people view as the biggest problem parts should be removed until the article becomes more stable. I've already put some work into it, and rewrote the introduction.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I couldn't find an article on the band, but users are free to redirect it to there if they can find it. I will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not much available in terms of reliable sources for this album. There's some tidbits on the band but mostly on its individual members whose notability comes from being in other groups, not this one nor for the recording of the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that it is an album released by a group called "Billionaires Boys' Club". I had never heard of them, but if they are a notable hard rock group, would it not be better to have an article on them and merge this article with the article on them? I shall admit that I cannot say anything with authority here, because, as I have already admitted, I had never heard of the group. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the CSD tag for A7, because there now seems to be a decent assertion of notability, but based on the sources I've added, I think this might fail based on WP:BLP1E, and I'd like to get a clear discussion on it. —Torchiest talkedits 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Elis (band). MBisanz talk 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already deleted after a proposed deletion, but it was recreated without the page history being restored, therefore most of the content of the article is not properly attributed. Furthermore, a search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. Neelix (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. The many good sources at Wall Street Journal, Time, Forbes, TechCrunch, etc., prove it passes GNG. Up at AfD for over 18 days, time to move on. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research. Mindmatrix 00:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Remember WENN. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Written in-universe, not many sources to create a substantial third-party article. PROD denied. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_Sherwood —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chun Qi Jiang
Clear case for WP:PERPETRATOR: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Ben Ben (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]