< 6 November	8 November >

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 Bob Ong. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABNKKBSNPLAko?![edit]

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

marginally notable author, this book has no references, none found. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author is quite popular, ranked 23,003[1] according to LibraryThing holdings (there are a couple million authors cataloged on LT). This book is the author's most popular book, with 182 members on LibraryThing [2], ranked 61,912 most popular out of 7 million titles cataloged. This source says it has sold over 700,000 copies.[3] Simply, this is a popular book by a popular author. Popularity further described in this cover story of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.[4] The book has been adapted to film.[5] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: library thing rankings are not usable as a reference to show notability, especially "members" who have tagged the book, or their sales rankings. the source for sales is not a reliable/significant one, being a small blog type site. the inquirer is a good ref, but it only mentions the book in passing, and is only a good ref for the author (it would be nice to have more than that for the author, but i think its enough for him). the film has NOT been adapted into a film yet, and that link doesnt discuss the book in any detail. Maybe when its a film, someone will actually write a review of the book. PS i suspect there are good tagalog language refs for the book, but i wouldnt be able to find them, not reading tagalog. I would strongly recommend that someone try to create the article for the book on the tagalog WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, given how popular this book is as evidenced by LibraryThing and other sources, it is quite likely indeed positive that there are more sources in Tagalog or whatever, which is why it might be good to show a little generosity in the spirit of systemic bias. The film does pass it on NBOOK #3, unless folks demand it be deleted immediately and recreated in 3 months when the film is released, a little busy work. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Bob Ong without prejudice against recreation when its film adaptation is released. I doubt that library rankings are an indication of notability in this case; although the author is actually pretty popular in the Philippines and gets coverage every once in a while (although his anonymity does kind of remind me of a certain Japanese pop idol duo), his books individually don't get as much significant coverage; at the moment, most of what I'm seeing is that it is being adapted into a film, which normally I would consider as a claim to notability, but with the lack of coverage of the book itself (which is surprising given the book's popularity and the fact that most Philippine mass media these days is in English), I think redirecting to the author's article (which probably needs works as well) would be the better option in this case, until the film is released and the article be spun-off again. On a side note though, someone please improve and expand the Bob Ong article. His anonymity would make an excellent DYK blub, though unlike the aforementioned Japanese pop idol duo, who are anonymous because of school work, Ong doesn't even give an exact reason as to why he wants his identity to be like that! (other than that he just wants it that way, as said in the interview) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the local book publishing industry is barely covered at all by the media. The only local books that are selling are Tagalog pocketbooks, Bob Ong books and college textbooks (lol). –H T D 14:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Naruto, this from the nominator who always forgets to offer that option when afd'ing. We can't help it if the book business in the philippines is not covered more. I know in northern california the book business gets the word out very well, thus its possible to get more articles on it here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't help it.." see WP:SYSTEMIC. We regularly give other countries a break on stuff like this when there is other evidence of notability available outside the standard western-style book review, a symptom of a book industry that doesn't exist everywhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am against systemic bias myself (if this were a book by an American author under similar circumstances, I would want a redirection as well). However, there's simply not enough coverage for the book itself for some reason (even in print media, and I read the newspapers all the time), but there is for the author, so for now, the author's article should be expanded and improved (DYK anyone?), and when the time comes that coverage for each book increases, then the book can have its own article. If the movie's release date were a bit nearer, then I'd actually support keeping the article, but right now the movie appears to be a bit far away, so too soon I guess. Of course, we could try something like our article for Pay It Forward, where the article is primarily about the movie and not the novel it is based on (whether that style is acceptable according to our guidelines or not is another story). As the final nail in the coffin, for some reason, I haven't heard of the book before the announcement of the movie (although I am familiar with the author), although that's probably because I don't read pocket books and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Risker (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316)[edit]

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

per article talk page: the name of John VI Kantakouzenos' father is unknown, and indeed little information about him exists other than that he served as governor in the Morea. In the relevant prosopographical works, the Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, and Donald Nicol's study of the Kantakouzenos family, no "Michael Kantakouzenos" appears that corresponds with this article.In broader usage, Google Books clearly shows - some mentions in tour guides etc aside - that the name is applied only to two other individuals, one a 13th-century megas konostaulos and the other a 16th-century Ottoman Greek magnate. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't serving as governor of the Byzantine province of the Morea enough for notability? That was no small position and held for 8 years. Or are you saying this claim has no sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not so much this person's existence - John VI obviously had a father, who was governor in the Morea - as the name and claims made in the article. The first name is unknown, and "Michael", which comes from Ostrogorsky, is without basis in the sources. Given that we don't know either this man's full name nor anything else other than his service as governor and his marriage and fathering a son, having an article on him seems to stretch things. After all, if a major work of the field like the PLP, which is so comprehensive as to include even people who are mentioned once in a letter as well as people who are mentioned only by their surname or their first name, doesn't mention John VI"s father in any way, then that alone should be grounds for asking ourselves whether an article is merited. It appears to me that the portrait painted of him by Ostrogorsky, on which the article is based, may have been more guesswork rather than based on the sources, since John VI himself is conspicuously silent about him. Constantine ✍ 21:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is whether this person can be named. There are many people who meet the criteria of notability, but unless one can supply certain facts about them (most importantly, an identifiable name) there is no good reason to have a separate article about them. Everything that can be said about this man -- he was governor of the Peloponnese & he was Emperor John VI Cantakouzenus' father -- can be moved to the article about the Emperor. (This was written the moment Cplakidas wrote his comment above. Sorry for the duplication.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the author of the note Cplankidas references. In his The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 1100-1460: a Genealogical and Prosopographical Study, Donald Nicol states that the man's name is unknown. Since Nicol's monograph was published over 40 years ago in 1968, I wondered if recent research had recovered his name & asked for a cite. Based on Cplankidas' research, there is no source, reliable or otherwise, for it. And considering everything worth saving in a merge into, say John VI Kantakouzenos is either presently in the article -- or should be, regardless of what happens here -- I can't find a reason to keep this article. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Kantakouzenos (governor of the Morea) or something else. Being a provincial governor and father of an emperor is quite enough. His first name is not a deal breaker. We've got lots of cricketers (e.g. Dunn (London cricketer), Lamborn (Hambledon cricketer), etc. ad nauseum) and others whose first names are unknown. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clarityfiend. If the problem is that his forename is unknown, then we must do without it. Unless the article is a HOAX (which seems unlikely), the content implies notability. The fact that we do not have his Christian name is irrelevant to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe rename per User:Clarityfiend's suggestion. Notable, links from relevant articles should be blued. Remember WP:NOTPAPER, no real reason for deletion, but clarification on uncertainty of name. Kenneaal (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christina July Kim[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. About the only information in the article that can be independently verified is that she exists and has a handful of non-notable acting credits (the only bluelink in the entire list is a short-lived CW show where she played a minor role in two episodes). Most of the listed references don't even mention her, and those that do are trivial. I was also unable to find any significant independent coverage via Gbooks, news archive, or web search. Camerafiend (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - This is a nice article and has good information but there's no indication of notability past some short films and two episodes of a now-cancelled CW show. As for the article's reference, up until the fifth link none of the links mention Christina and even the vkshah.info link mentions her briefly. The eighth reference also mentions her even more briefly, with an IMDb link. I've searched even with Google News using nearly every production she's had and have found nothing. If the CW show hadn't been cancelled, she may have received a little more attention for that but for now, the films have been small and although the films themselves received some attention, the actress did not. She hasn't won any awards even indie film ones and I think it's that she hasn't gotten a noticeable big break. IMDb shows she's also had small roles such as "party guest" "project manager" and other one names that probably small roles also. She seems to have some films in production so at least she's still active. The acting industry is tough because you have stand out in a way different than the others. No prejudice towards userfying or a future article should the time come. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete- - We can verify she is a workign actor, but without the requisite coverage in reliable, sources, inclusion criteria for actors is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 18:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Cordier[edit]

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

Another non notable free agent minor leaguer. Article contains very little information, other than that he was involved in a marginal trade. Spanneraol (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 16:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. He was covered in detail here, here, here, here, here and here. Alex (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is routine coverage that numerous other minor league players get.--Yankees10 17:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails to meet WP:BASEBALL/N criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and Redirect~~ to Pittsburgh_Pirates_minor_league_players as suggested by WP:WPBB/N #7 --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that makes zero sense since he is no longer affiliated with the Pirates org.--Yankees10 00:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Baseball-reference.com he played during the 2013 season with the Indianapolis Indians, the Pirate's AAA affiliate. Granted, a 27-yo minor leaguer might not get signed the next season, but I don't see there any indication he's gone from Indy. Did I miss something? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He became a free agent after the season according to this.--Yankees10 01:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp, then indeed I did miss something. In which chase I change my suggestion to Delete. If he catches on to a team in 2014, the article can be re-created or sent to DRV or he can be added to the correct {organization} minor league players page.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bromberg (baseball)[edit]

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

Not notable individual who apparently won some awards in the low minors but I can find no evidence that he meets our notability requirements. Was at one point nominated for deletion before as part of a bundled afd but cant find that right now. He was part of the infamous Johnny Spasm Fort Myers Miracle article creation process. Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in Venezuela, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ah, one of the last surviving Spasm Miracle. (Aside from those who actually reached MLB, that is.) Not notable due to lack of sources. The Venezuelan Professional Baseball League does not (or should not) count as a top-level league, because it's not one. It's an off-season league typically populated by minor leaguers from the area. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as Muboshgu.--Yankees10 18:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Muboshgu. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): personal essay based on nothing verifiable." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PMT (phenylmethyltryptamine)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article, as I noted when I PRODed it, contains no references and Googling this article's title turns up no evidence that this drug ever existed. In addition, googling "Dmitry Shizkov" (presumably that's how it is supposed to be spelled) turns up no results when googled in quotes. Accordingly, I suspect this article to be a hoax and think it should be deleted. Jinkinson talk to me 20:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax. As "phenylmethyltryptamine", Google provides a shocking zero non-Wikipedia web hits, book hits, or scholar hits. Unless I've overlooked something, not even erowid has heard of this drug, which seems deeply implausible for a psychedelic that had even a brief market release for another purpose, and which is purportedly well-known as a recreational drug. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it was primarily used in Russia and is now obscure, there is zero evidence to support this article. Likewise, searches at Google News, Books and Scholar failed to provide anything. There are items with "methyltryptamine" in it such as N-Methyltryptamine and alpha-Methyltryptamine but not this. Final searches failed to provide anything. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete; the article is sourced and not particularly time-sensitive, so it seems to me the editing community is capable of dealing with a potential merge/expansion on their own time. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe fighting[edit]

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

The majority of the information in this article is covered in the main giraffe article and the rest is just fluff. It is in violation of WP:SUMMARY. LittleJerry (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of the information in this is already incorporated into the Giraffe page and some other information is not totally true but I like the idea. For people like myself, researching for an assignment about animal behaviour, having a separate page for this will be very useful.

No. Separate pages are created when the section gets too long for the article. That's not the case here. LittleJerry (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have you considered that this page could be an extension to the 'Necking' section of the 'Giraffe' page? Pretty sure this topic is of interest to many people, including Robert E. Simmons and Lue Scheepers, who both are once famous researchers at Uppsala University. They have both written an article about this single topic and was published by the department of Zoology. What we should do here is make a 'main article' link in the 'necking' section of giraffe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.27.4 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if the necking section got too big for the article then yes this would be needed. But it isn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this article would be too long to be merged into the Giraffe page, so a separate page needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterCalum (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains always no new information, at least not enough that it can't be put into the main giraffe article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a giraffe enthusiast I found the page on giraffe fighting very interesting and helpful in my research of giraffe behavior. I first witnessed giraffe fighting on the show Africa and ever since wanted to find more out about it this wiki page provided me with this and I feel that if deleted it would really disadvantage other enthusiasts like myself munn1995 (talk •contribs)20:50 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I find the article on giraffe fighting very interesting indeed. It fascinates me to see how majestic animals fight such as lions, hippos and bears and what fascinates me the most are the giraffes because they have a very unique way of fighting that you don't see with other animals. This article provides information that I have not seen, read or heard before. I am sure that Wikipedia users as well as animal lovers would love to see this article stay on Wikipedia.

You can read about it in the giraffe article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SIZE, the main giraffe article is too large and so splitting is sensible. Warden (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of giraffe. I am unconvinced that that article is so unwieldy that a break on this topic is necessary. Carrite (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lee Hazlewood. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friday's Child (1965 song)[edit]

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

5-year-old article with very little content (2 lines of prose and an infobox) and no indication of notability (a quick search did not yield much). Does not seem to warrant its own article. Fru1tbat (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lee Hazlewood. I'm only seeing passing mentions. (Note this is also the name of a Hazlewood album[6]). --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How does removing this improve wikipedia? It is a minor song of a seminal TV special by an undeniably notable singer and songwriting couple. Leaving it does not harm wp and does not blatantly meet the guidelines for deletion. ~ К3вину (RSVP) (What)

You may want to take a look at WP:NOHARM: "Just because an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean the article should be kept." --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Colapeninsula. One important guideline is not met here: WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is not inherited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Manzanillo[edit]

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

Run of the mill minor leaguer with a career ERA of 5.64. Has some sources but nothing that suggests he's different or more notable than hundreds of other minor leaguers. Zero notability as far as I'm concerned. Yankees10 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far from run of the mill. He was a highly regarded prospect whose career trajectory changed with an injury suffered in a car accident. There is significant coverage (as in beyond brief mentions) of him that I found before I removed PROD from MiLB.com, NBC Sports, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and Hoy. There's also coverage in Diario Libre and ESPN Deportes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources there in my opinion to scrape WP:GNG.Blethering Scot 22:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Fang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only third-party sources give trivial coverage, which per WP:SIGCOV means it isn't notable. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editors beware the third nomination! But, really, there should a rule about bringing up an AfD so soon after the last one has failed to win over minds. In fact, the more we improve the article, the more this is becoming an exercise in futility. I will grant you that Fang is ABSOLUTELY DESPISED by his opponents but that SHOULD NEVER be an issue here! At least, the nominator, who was a participant in the last nomination, is trying to improve his argumentation from his previous attempt to point out fault with WP:BASIC and failed. Fang is, in fact, getting more and more coverage about his reporting: See this one-on-one interview with Thom Hartmann, who is RT host of the "Big Picture". RT The Big Picture YouTube channel, part one and The Big Picture, part two (May 6, 2013) aptly called "Conversations with Great Minds"! The same source interviews Lee Fang about his allegation of how a conservative organization roughed up him and another reporter while reporting, ALEC v. Lee Fang in 2011.

This is what I said before and this what i'll say again: "Per WP:SIGCOV The subject is the source for a good number of other journalists and reputable sources, such as NPR, MSNBC, etc., and he does count as a expert under notability standards of WP:Author: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have added some sources for traditional, non-partisan media. His articles have attracted widespread attention among the political press and not for just one event. I disagree that he fails to meet WP:BASIC both on the number of citations and the fact that the policy allows for primary sources if notability does not hang on them, which is the case here. Enough secondary sources do discuss his reporting. Moreover, if you include coverage from the U.S. alternative press on both the right and the left, then the source without a doubt has been given enough coverage."Crtew (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAGAIN. And for notability the sources have to be third-party. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:NOTAGAIN and you have every right to keep bringing this up, and I have every right to continue arguing policy to keep! Crtew (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be policy then to suggest that you give it time although I assume good faith: And just so we both know that you read the same policy: " Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it."!!! Crtew (talk)

It was closed due to no consensu both times. Don't argue consenus when the sysops say there is none. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd nomination was made less than a month ago and it was closed days ago. That's not time for anything to have changed by any standard of expectation. Crtew (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue consensus. If you read closely: comma and then or .... that means either ... or ... Crtew (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the second time in a month! This nomination seems rather pointy, given that the previous one just closed and nothing has changed. No new information is presented in this nomination, so the arguments remain the same. No valid reason for deletion is demonstrated. The article is about an author that writes for several highly notable publications, and whose work and person have been discussed by notable publications. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdraws, no delete votes. NAC Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Hastie (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are only two person by the name "William Hastie" , William H. Hastie and William Hastie. One hat-note will suffice. Solomon 7968 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's 3 people: William Hastie, the clergyman; William Heste aka Hastie the architect; and William H. Hastie the judge and civil rights leader. The second was born Hastie and is often known by that name in English-language (and particularly Scottish) sources[7][8][9], but is also known by Heste (a transliteration to Russian and back), so it's entirely appropriate to include him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify, I added the clergyman to the disambiguation page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep now that there are three. The lawyer William H. Hastie,[10][11][12] son of William H. Hastie, may also be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful disambig page that creates no problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid, 3-entry dab. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now has 5 entries, but was valid to begin with. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think an admin should look at closing this now - result obvious. Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn I didn't noticed the Heste-Hastie transliteration issue. Now that the dab has 5 entries feel free to close this nomination. Solomon 7968 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Webb Hodge[edit]

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

Subject was connected with various anthropologist research in the field. Does not appear to have any real credentials on his own. Not educated particularly. Field research was weak. He was "there." Pretty much it. Doesn't seem to have found anything (on his own). Leaders of the expeditions justifiably took credit for whatever they found. At most, an ordinary person involved with excavating Native American sites. Not really notable. Student7 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly a distinguished museum professional. The string of honorary degrees awarded when he was in his late 60s confirms that he regarded as notable in his time. Partipation in expeditions that have their own WP pages points the same way. Is "Executive Officer" of Smithsonian the equivalent of CEO? If so, notable again. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obit on professional journal.[13] Xxanthippe (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep. The New Mexico State Historian link on the article (which I've just replaced with an archived copy since the original seems to have gone dead) together with the obit found by Xxanthippe and the New York Times obit, constitute a clear pass of WP:GNG, which may work better than WP:PROF in this case since he seems not to have held a faculty position and most of WP:PROF is oriented around that. I would !vote keep based only on having an NYT obit even if we didn't have all the other material. Additionally, Google news search finds five or so articles in the Los Angeles Times that are specifically about him, over a 20-year period, including one calling him "One of the world s great scientists", although I can't find the articles themselves online. And the nominator's vague statement about how he or she personally isn't impressed by the research doesn't address notability policy and isn't very persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein, Xxanthippe, and Peterkingiron. Nothing to add, they said it all. --Randykitty (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. Michael Barera (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep -- three honorary degrees from important schools is three times the number needed for a Snow Keep no matter what else is in the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please [14]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R v Brooks, Coulson and six others[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Most trials aren't notable enough for standalone article. I tried to redirect this to News International phone hacking scandal but got reverted. ...William 18:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions....William 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS, possible redirect to the actual scandal page if we have to keep it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most trials aren't, but this one is hitting the headlines in Britain at present as a major trial, 4 of the defendants already have their own Wikipedia biography, 2 of them are associates of the Prime Minister. The article is short at present but is likely to expand quickly. See Sheridan v News Group Newspapers, HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan and R v Evans and McDonald as examples of recent British trials with an article, the last survived a deletion discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The trial itself is inherently notable and will remain as a notable trial after the news feeding frenzy has abated. Coverage in WP:RS is assured, and sorting the wheat from the chaff will be a challenge sometimes, but the trial is notable, and will be whatever the verdict is. Editors need to keep the article in check an edit it tightly to ensure NPOV, but the topic itself is notable. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that actually 5 of the 8 defendants were notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies even before this trial started, quite possibly a record in Wikpedia's history, which I suggest confirms notability. Also there must be hundreds of articles under the super-category "Trials", if people want to start deleting non-notable trials this is not the best place to start. PatGallacher (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This trial is scheduled to last for five months with many revelations of permanent interest likely to emerge. Without this separate article, the deluge of reliable sources over the coming months may unbalance the articles on Brooks, Coulson and the others. It is quite possible the evidence will bring in other individuals with a significant role in the case whose putative Wikipedia articles would fail notability on WP:BLP1E grounds. Philip Cross (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unenthusiastic as I am for having articles written during the course of legal proceedings, the logic above for keeping this one seems sound. The trial will pass for notability once it is over. Possibly a merge down into the News International phone hacking scandal might be done eventually, but one important aspect of this whole affair is that whilst the trial is necessarily about the conduct of certain individuals some of the practices engaged in were allegedly and by admission widespread. Splitting the News International aspects from the wider topic of the scandal might be the way to go, but only after the dust has settled and all the many the legal proceedings are concluded. Piling yet more into an article that is already unwieldy is not helpful, and I entirely agree about the inappropriateness of putting this material into the BLPs especially as the defendants are being tried together. --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While trial in this case has only just started, it is likely to remain a very significant one that will be referred to for years to come. I suspect that in due course we will want to rename it to something like News International phone hacking trial. We may even want to merge it back to the scandal, but that will need to be done when the trial is completed and we know its outcome. It is exceptionally unusual for newspaper editors to find themsleves on trial for the way they did their jobs. The case will be notable for that if nothing else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While most trials are just news, and thus are not notable as legal cases nor as precedent, this appears to be an "exception that proves the rule". This is not only generating headlines, but may be the most significant of the trials about media spying in Britain this decade. Keep. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Guryel[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced autobiography. No notability whatsover. bender235 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to hold off voting on the Bromcom AfD for now but it seems clear that Ali Guryel is not notable and has wholly received attention for his companies. Google News only provided two results, none of which seem to be in-depth about him. Additional searching found the following links, 1, 2, 3 and 4, all of which are not in-depth either. Before ending my search, I thought I'd look at Google Scholar and see if he received attention as an academic, he did not. I found one link, which is now dead but retrievable, which is also minor. I vote delete for this article and if Bromcom is found to be notable, I wouldn't object to a redirect. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bromcom, if that survives AFD. I consider that company is probably notable, but that does not mean that a director is. Equally obtaining a patent probably does not confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Frucor. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus Isotonic Sports Drink[edit]

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

Propose redirecting to Frucor since the product appears non-notable. I had previously redirected it but the article creator recreated the page. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as fails GNG, it's more sandbox material than anything.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Searches at Google News provided nothing so I thought I'd go to the Australian Google and search, but I also found nothing. Next, I searched national newspapers The Australian and Australian Financial Review but also found nothing. I also searched Coffs Coast Advocate, Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph. It's likely this product hasn't received much in-depth attention. The Wikipedia article for Frucor seems to have troubles as well but Google News does have news articles for Frucor and their website claims that they have won several awards. I'm going to try and improve the Frucor article as much as I can. I'm not fluent in Japanese but if it's Japanese-owned, there are probably sources in Japanese as well. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to mention that I have significantly improved the parent company's article. While this product (Maximus) is not notable, Frucor definitely is. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Owen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league ballplayer. Previous afd called for a merge, but this player is no longer in the Mets organization so merge is no longer possible. Unlikely at his age and skill level to make the majors and no evidence of article meeting GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in Venezuela, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League does not (or should not) count as a top-level league, because it's not one. Sources are lacking on this individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason as Muboshgu.Yankees10 18:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment King[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Batman: The Animated Series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited, especially when the article has no references. Jinkinson talk to me 20:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC animated universe characters#The Adventures of Batman & Robin or delete. Either is acceptable. Non-notable character. No sources and fails the WP:GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Bar[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of DC Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Island[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. I see scores of trivial mentions on the web, but none of them seem to satisfy the WP:GNG. With the lack of independent sources in the article, it's difficult to find evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Leans keep per bd2412's sources. v/r - T P 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctum Sanctorum[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search finds lots of Google Books references from independent sources, indicating notability. I have added a few, just as quick examples. bd2412 T 18:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more significant? The first one is more related to the tone of the comics than the location. The second really doesn't add anything besides a filler reference, so I don't really even see the point in adding it. TTN (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least a few dozen references in books alone. I have no doubt that these add up to significance. bd2412 T 18:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you point one out? Between Google and Amazon there seem to be two mentions in Marvel Comics in the 1970s. I'm fine withdrawing if the topic is actually notable, but I'm not seeing anything major relating to its overall development or any significance beyond it being mentioned because Doctor Strange is the actual notable topic. TTN (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I searched for "Sanctum Sanctorum" "Doctor Strange" and got dozens of hits, and searched for "Sanctum Sanctorum" "Dr. Strange" and got dozens more (not all the same sources). Searching without the name of the character yields a large number of false positives. bd2412 T 19:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm still not seeing anything different than searching it with "Marvel." There's the minor thing about the address and that seems to be about it. It's mentioned a bunch of times, but that's only within the context of the fact that the character lives there. Something like the Fortress of Solitude that can be considered iconic and independent of the character can probably be developed, but those really aren't jumping out as containing anything relevant to it beyond its direct relation to the character. TTN (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know that "iconic" or "independent of the character" matter in an AfD discussion, so long as the sources exist. bd2412 T 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That was an ending statement meant to go with the idea that there are no sources to establish it as an independent topic. Two sources provide minor real world information that doesn't really do anything for the topic, and I'm not seeing anything else beyond minor mentions in plot summaries from those search entries. TTN (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412. BOZ (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. I'm not convinced the Google Books results conclusively establish notability. Like TTN, I think that something like Superman's Fortress of Solitude or Batman's Batcave better demonstrate the notability of an encyclopedia article. There's little to say about the Sanctum Sanctorum except that Doctor Strange lives there. Independent sources are rare, and they seem to mostly collect in-universe details, such as what mystical tomes Doctor Strange collects and what spells he's cast on it. Something like the Fortress of Solitude gets countless hits, from science journals using it to discuss Antarctica to magazines reviewing fine art based on it. There are scholarly works analyzing it. I just don't see what we can say about this topic that can't be covered by a few sentences or a brief paragraph in Features. If people really want detailed information about what mystical tomes are stored there, they can always go to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Birnbaum[edit]

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

I created this article and wrote most of it in a late-night moment of keen interest, but the next day had second thoughts. Meanwhile a COI IP account showed up and began adding additional sources. On my suggestion that it was probably not notable, they eventually agreed it probably was not, and also would like to delete it.

Rationale: Non-notable author and businessman per WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR. I'll go through the 7 sources used in the article:

Harvard Business School sources.[15][16] Since Birnbaum is a Harvard alumni they are dependent sources, unreliable.
The BBB is a primary source database.[17] OK for fact checking but not notability, most businesses are listed at BBB, unreliable sources.
Book reviews from 1990[18] and 1993.[19] They are reliable sources, but two book reviews in little-known journals are not enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR.
Chronicle of Higher Education (COHE)[20] and The Guardian.[21] These are in depth and reliable. Birnbaum has had a 31 year career, there is very little else about him other than these sources centered around a WP:ONEEVENT Bard College conference. They tell much the same story and event. Even if one were to argue these sources show notability (for what?), two sources are not enough for WP:GNG.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:BLP1E. jps (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article does not establish notability, of which there appears to be little. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DEDUCTIO[edit]

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

Non-notable board/card game. Article appears to have been created by the game's creator, as was the description at BoardGameGeek. (I am unable to access the trictrac source at this time, but even if it proves valid, it would be the sole valid source available.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Google has never heard of it. If someone can come up with French sources, I'm willing to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Bolz-Weber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has previously been deleted under A7 by User:GiantSnowman and then restored on Request. Having queried the level of sourcing with him this was taken to AFD Here and closed as delete on 11 October 2013. Article was recreated on 5 November using only one source, another user added two further sources onto the one already reliable one discussed at last AFD. Speedy was declined so i am bringing back to AFD as per admin and talk page. It is my view that the subject does not have enough RELIABLE sources, there are only around three that would contribute to notability, to establish that the individual has both long-standing notability to meet GNG which should be a high threshold when considering a subject who is fairly unknown and is a BLP. I would also say that the sources cover mostly one event and do not show longevity of notability. Blethering Scot 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree that there has been enough reliable sources presented to match WP:GNG. Its still minimal in my view as littered with blog posts in addition to four or five strong articles although they still all cover a small period of time not longstanding. Article should be kept but as i cant withdraw due to comments i will not that should be *Kept and worked on a lot however. Also WP:BLP must be observed as there was until i tidied it out a few terms we cant really use unless explicitly sourced.Blethering Scot 22:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it now has 3 reliable sources. BS, why do you persist in deleting On Being which is a reliable source? what part of GNG don't you understand? Duckduckgo (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand WP:GNG I'm afraid you seem to not. Reliable sources do not mean they meet GNG. Strength of source, volume of sources, three or four is still very low for a notable person and being for more than one event which is included in that policy. Also longstanding notability is important for someone that is relatively unknown and is a WP:BLP. And the source which is actually a blog post onbeing.org/blog which may not be subject to the same editorial control as the main site therefore its questionable. Its also unnecessary as preaching at a festival is a non notable event.Blethering Scot 18:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (caveat: I declined the G4 speedy deletion due to the presence of new sources since the last discussion.) The current version of the article references extensive write-ups in four publications which all meet the criteria for reliable sources. They clearly cover more than one event (you've got coverage of her theology, her publications, her former careers as a comedian and weightlifter, her tattoos, her Red Rock Ampitheatre sermon and more), and they're all fairly in-depth. You've therefore got significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources - that's the textbook definition of notability. I won't deny that the page needs a lot of expansion, but deletion? Not at all. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems plenty notable to me. Here are articles from a CNN newsblog, a Washington Post newsblog, The Denver Post, etc. It seems to me that she's rapidly gaining notability and media attention, and having a best-selling book will only compound that interest. As a polarizing figure, she's bound to attract controversy. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in where to find such things, but I'm confident that others can find something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Can you explain bearing in mind WP:BLP and the person in question at this time is not overly notable, how four sources which in my view are not detailed enough, nor about multiple events meets the threshold of WP:GNG. is there enough to suggest long term notability, not seeing it. Also the article was recreated a very short time after AFD, by a closely linked editor to the first creator. The last parts not important but the first parts certainly are. In this state and notability we are badly letting a very lesser known subject down and as a BLP we should not be. Yes we could scrape past and see in 6 months to a year how notable person is and then bring back to AFD, but we should have given enough time between the last AFD and this one to actually prove the notability outright.Blethering Scot 17:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just four sources, though. I was able to easily find several more, which I linked above. They may not be detailed enough for you, but they're detailed enough for me. We're talking about multiple printed pages here, all dedicated to a single person. Not a passing mention, not a single paragraph, and not just a puff piece about a local hero. Long, in-depth articles. There's no rule that people can't recreate articles, as long as they are significantly improved. This one seems to have no issue establishing notability, and I don't think we need to wait 6 months. This article passes the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC quite easily. If someone has this many newspaper articles written about them, they're notable enough for a Start-class Wikipedia article, and locating a few more will make C-class a cinch. Not every article has to be a Featured article with hundreds of sources and a bibliography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:No they don't, and i certainly don't see this ever becoming much. CNN and Washington Post are blog posts and looking at them I'm not convinced that they have the same editorial restraints to make them reliable, there pretty dicey one links to where you can buy the tshirt, which is a blocked link if you to try and add that to show you here. So yes four sources.Blethering Scot 20:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They both pass WP:NEWSBLOG. They are reliable sources, whether you like them or not. The CNN newsblog even has a banner that says it has passed the CNN editorial review process, and it is written by a scholar (Sarah Sentilles) on the subject. The Washington Post article is written by a professional journalist. I was going to add them to the article, but now it seems likely that it would just be reverted, and I'm completely uninterested in an edit war or dragging you to some drama board so that I can get the edits upheld. Seriously, it doesn't matter if an article links to cafepress. Of all the ridiculous reasons to reject a reliable source, that's about the worst one that I've ever seen. She's also been featured on the NPR-affiliated radio program On Being here. It's not that difficult to find reliable sources offering significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the same reasons as the last AfD. Of the "new sources," two (the UK Daily Mail tabloid, and a press release for her book) are not WP:RS. The Washington Post article doesn't seem to establish notability either. -- 101.119.14.212 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a lot of new sources. Total of 5 book reviews (per WP:AUTHOR #3 "multiple reviews") + 7 GNG sources. In addition a couple of the sources make direct assertions of notability. I'll quote them if requested, they should be quoted in the article anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive removed one as I've already said its a blog and very questionable. In addition the book reviews don't add anything and are ott. The others are of varying levels i still believe only 4 are reliable enough to be put towards GNG. However I will concede it looks a hell of a lot stronger and I'm less concerned about the BLP aspects, but i hope that you will be willing to actually expand the article using those sources other wise you can remove a fair whack of them as an article thats only a couple of sentences long doesn't need a source every few words and if it can be expanded which you and others seem to think you would be far better doing it.Blethering Scot 21:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Re: source at CNN According to WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." CNN is clearly under editorial control. Sarah Sentilles is a published author on religious topics (by Harpers Publishing), and has published other journalism articles in other reliable sources. If this went to RS/N it would almost certainly pass as reliable.
2 There is nothing wrong with the book reviews. They are reliable sources and according to WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews counts towards notability.
3 Adding the sources is one first step. I hope someone uses them to expand the article. There is no time limit and this is a community project we all pitch in different ways as time and interests allow. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for the reply. I agree re most but that CNN post contains links we actually block. Im fully aware of the blog and reliable sources but as it says must have been subject to the outlet's full editorial control. I don't believe that to be the case here. It also adds nothing that the others don't so we don't need to use it. Im not questioning the book reports reliability but there isn't much in any of them to add to notability but there is nothing wrong with, that but simply other sources cover the same. Also i never mentioned time limits but said it needs done and it does.Blethering Scot 22:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied with the sources presented by NinjaRobotPirate. Those are enough to establish notability for me. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable author, as indicated by the reviews. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Mitchell[edit]

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

Article is very poorly referenced. Subject is not notable. Article was written by an intern working for the subject, as claimed here Camjackson (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the banner about poor references has been there for more than three years, so it is unlikely to improve. Camjackson (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sympathetic to underlying issues, but it appears "Dan Mitchell" (as he goes by) is widely quoted in mainstream media in his capacity as an Economics expert. Per WP:PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Multiple reliable television sources seen here. Often quoted in the Washington Post.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], WSJ MarketWatch [32][33]. Wall Street Journal.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] New York Times.[46][47][48][49] He testified to a joint committee of the US Congress.[50] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree there are clearly underlying issues that need rapidly addressed however notability isn't questionable in fact seems very strong.Blethering Scot 22:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Blaylock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated back in 2009, the result being no consensus even though the sourcing was not up to snuff. Nothing has changed in that regard: there are not multiple, reliable sources about this person in order to build notability or an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sourcing is provided in the article, despite the lengthy bibliography; the only things that even look like independent sources turn out to be op-ed columns or articles from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). In my searching, the only independent sourcing I found was an entry for him at The Skeptic's Dictionary. Bottom line: Some pseudoscience promoters are notable enough for an article here, but Blaylock is not.--MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 14?. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep subject of the article, along with Ludwig G. Kempe, developed a novel procedure (transcallosal approach to excising intraventricular meningiomas of the trigone). (WP:Prof#C1 is satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.).--163.1.147.64 (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. May we have some independent sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I have also found (being the same human as operated 163.1.147.64 before I returned home) that Kempe and Blaylock also developed the ventriculolymphatic shunt in the treatment of hydrocephalus. I added two PudMed abstracts of neurosurgery journals, one for each, then noticed that the springer link was the publishing house's copy (word for word) of the the PubMed abstract, so have tidied the springer link away. Is this acceptable?--86.6.187.246 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Zero Google Scholar hits for the supposed procedure, and only one book listing. The book was written by Blaylock. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero Google Scholar hits for the supposed procedure" Really?--163.1.147.64 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof#C1 is satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. That notability guideline does mention Google Scholar in the "Citation metrics" section at the bottom of the guidance, where, alongside PubMed, specific cautions are issued: the section starts however with "The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus" noting that Scopus covers the sciences, but is very incomplete before 1996 - the cites I found related to papers in 1976 and 1977, it also notes that Web of Knowledge may cover the sciences back to 1900, but only the largest universities can afford the entire set.

The same guidance also says about h-index etc:"Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others."--163.1.147.64 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your cite from WP:PROF is correct. Of course, in "significant new concept, technique or idea", the most important word is "significant" and we have no evidence that anybody considered this significant in the present case. I have access to the full Web of Knowledge. It lists 18 articles by "Blaylock RL". They have been cited a grand total of 201 times, maximum citations 35, 32, 23, h-index of 9. I've had a grad student with these numbers by the time they finished their PhD. As PROF says, low figures do not prove non-notability, but we're not here to show non-notability (it is actually impossible to prove non-notability, as their always may be some sources out there that we missed somehow). Instead, we need to show that there is notability, and these figures sure don't indicate any. --Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar "RL Blaylock"'s Immune-Glutamatergic Dysfunction as a Central Mechanism of the Autism Spectrum Disorders is cited 73 times though that does not touch on the "supposed" procedure.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you the one citing extensively from WP:PROF about the advantages of WoK? GS often gives higher counts than WoK. The count I gave is low for WoK. The count you give would still be rather low for WoK, but it is certainly low for GS. We rarely judge an academic notable based on citations alone, except when there are multiple articles with more than 100 cites, a total of 1000 cites or more, and an h-index of 18 or something like that at least. Whether you take WoK or GS, we're far removed from those figures (and this is a high-citation field). --Randykitty (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally imply any advantages - only warnings about cite ratings per se and what the Wikipedia community appear to have agreed on regarding guideline inclusion levels, the cite ratings I noted as not best fit for the subject of the article - if you inferred any advantages... none was meant. You replied with more cite ratings stating maxima so when I found a number double that I merely noted it back to you, as your argument otherwise is to the point: 'is this novel procedure significant or not?' It would be very simple if multiple impartial, qualified third parties clearly stated whether this novel procedure is significant or not, how many times does that actually happen though in this particular field? You appear (from your contributions record) to understand this field much better than I, how many times have you been able to add similar such sources to articles on subjects who are stated to have introduced novelty?--163.1.147.64 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although sources on Blaylock himself are skimpy, his works have a lengthy list of citations which more than justify the inclusion of his article within Wikipedia. While I personally don't agree with his methods and research, it is important that they be documented within the article so the public can make a determination of their validity or their non-validity. Deleting the article would be construed as a form of censorship of alternative medicine (which I generally do not support) at the behest of organs such as the AMA, a dubious practice Wikipedia should avoid. HarryZilber (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WOW that is some conspiracy theory there! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A GS h-index of 14, most-cited article on GS has 56 citations. @Harryzilber: This would never be enough to keep a bio of a mainstream researcher. Are you proposing that we should apply lower standards for alternative medicine? --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources below. Unless otherwise noted, all sourced are from newspapers archived in the commercial database Newsbank, and may be verified at WP:REX. The sources are in two groups per relevant rule.

Per WP:PROF #7. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity... Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

"Are sodas detrimental? You decide", Deming Headlight (NM) - August 8, 2013. Section: News. Quote: "According to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, there is "an enormous increase in tumors, particularly brain tumors" connected to aspartame."
"Supplements marketed for sexual enhancement were most commonly recalled products." Sacramento Examiner (CA) - May 13, 2013. Section: Sacramento Nutrition Examiner. Quote: "The book, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, is one of the first books to address the hazards of food additives."
"Secret body scanners’ [50 times more Radiation] than airport x-ray scanners (Video)", Albuquerque Examiner (NM) - Monday, January 14, 2013 Quote: "..included is Dr. Russell Blaylock , M.D., (FL.) a board certified neurosurgeon, who stated: “The growing outrage over.."
"DANGEROUS SIDE EFFECTS OF SOME DRUGS", Watertown Daily Times (NY) - Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Quote: "Retired neurosurgeon, i.e. free to speak, Russell Blaylock prophetically stated after the Virginia Tech massacre, "With millions of people.."
"Should parents be concerned about the whooping cough vaccine?", Chicago Examiner (IL) - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Quote: "Dr. Russell Blaylock is neurosurgeon, author and leading vaccine expert."
"Another view on vaccination". Taos News (NM) - Thursday, June 28, 2012 Quote: "Vigil suggests going to the CDC website. As an alternative (you should always get a second opinion), I suggest these websites run by medical professionals and other highly educated people: Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board-certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer."
"Eight Fake Health Foods". Statesman-Examiner (Colville, WA) - Wednesday, June 13, 2012. Quote: "In 2012, there is no longer any way to guarantee that a soybean is not genetically modified. In addition, Dr. Russell Blaylock , an actual brain surgeon, tells us that TVP belongs to a group of poisons called excitotoxins. Dr. Blaylock says that excitotoxins kill your brain cells, and that guy has looked at a lot of brain cells, so I believe him."
"These things have ruined our endocrine health". Cumberland Times-News (MD) - Tuesday, April 3, 2012 Quote: "In the February, 2012 Blaylock Wellness Report, Dr. Russell Blaylock had a great review on “The Secret Science of Losing Fat.”"
"Spice It Up". The Brazosport Facts (Clute, TX) - Sunday, March 25, 2012 Quote: "“Turmeric has an ability to help block cancer-causing chemicals that are created when you sear meat,” she said. Information supporting this idea comes from neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock , author of several books on natural ways to improve health."
"MSG is in more foods than you think". Appeal-Democrat (Marysville-Yuba City, CA) - Sunday, October 9, 2011. Quote: "In her book "Breakthrough: Eight Steps to Wellness," Suzanne Somers interviews Dr. Russell Blaylock , a board-certified neurosurgeon and nutritional practitioner." etc.. many quotes
"Sugar: Ditch it and improve your physical and mental health". Oakland Examiner (CA) - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 Quote: "Dr. Russell Blaylock (Neurosurgeon, author and lecturer) explains that high sugar content and starchy carbohydrates lead to excessive insulin release, which leads to falling blood sugar levels, or hypoglycaemia."
"Are vaccines harmful rather than beneficial?" Atlanta Examiner (GA) - Monday, April 25, 2011 Quote: "Dr Russell Blaylock , a neurosurgeon, is concerned that vaccinations themselves are causing an upsurge in childhood diseases and adult maladies such as Lou Gehrig’s disease, Gulf War Syndrome and Parkinson’s disease. "
"An alternative look at cancer awareness" Chicago Examiner (IL) - Friday, October 8, 2010 Quote: "..he had a special guest who was very knowledgeable; Dr. Russell Blaylock , board certified neurosurgeon and researcher of nutrition for disease prevention. Dr. Blaylock shared some “eye-opening” facts and studies about breast cancer that we need to consider."
"Letter: Swine flu paranoia swells need for vaccine" Herald Bulletin (Anderson, IN) - Thursday, September 17, 2009 Quote: "I want to quote, Dr. Russell Blaylock , who stated, “This virus continues to be an enigma for virologists."
"Vaccination and brain injuries: Are you at risk?" Cumberland Times-News (MD) - Thursday, September 3, 2009 Quote: "On Aug. 11, I gave a 20-minute presentation to the Allegany County School Board in an attempt to educate the current school board members on the new medical research on immunoexcitotoxicity by Dr. Russell Blaylock ."
"Suzanne Somers' New Book on How She Beat Cancer." CNN - Saturday, December 20, 2008 Quote: "Somers: One neuroscientist I interviewed -- his name is Dr. Russell Blaylock -- he said avoid things in bags and boxes. Avoid diet soda. He said one diet soda so over-stimulates the neurons of the brain, it literally excites them to death within six to eight hours. He said.."
"Suzanne Somers Pens Book on Wellness" FOX News Channel - Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Quote: "SOMERS: Anyway, it's my reality, and I'm really, really passionate about this. So I'm interviewing this brain surgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock (ph), a brain scientist. And he said..."
"Want full disclosure with that meal?" St. Petersburg Times (FL) - Sunday, September 25, 2005 Quote: "Russell Blaylock , a board-certified neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, notes that our current childhood obesity epidemic mirrors exactly the MSG-induced obesity in experimental animals."
Vartan, Starre. E: The Environmental Magazine. Nov/Dec2003, Vol. 14 Issue 6, p42-43. Abstract: Provides information on natural alternatives to sugar. Health risks associated with aspartame; Comments from neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock; Vitamin content of honey; Description of agave nectar.
Jule Klotter. "High-Dose Antioxidants & Cancer Treatment." Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. August 2001 p16. Abstract: Examines Blaylock's paper "A Review of conventional Cancer Prevention and Treatment and the Adjunctive Use of Nutraceutical Supplements and Antioxidants" (Source: Health & Wellness Resource Center | (Gale))
"Sisters try to fight debilitating disease with specific diet" - Charleston Daily Mail (WV) - Tuesday, May 11, 1999 Quote: "The key, Hypes reasoned, was what nationally acclaimed author Dr. Russell Blaylock calls excitotoxins - chemicals, often flavor enhancers, usually added to food. They stimulate nerve endings."
"The lowdown on sweetener - Some doctors say aspartame may be unsafe" Boston Herald - Sunday, May 9, 1999 Quote: ""In my opinion, aspartame has not been demonstrated to be a safe food additive," said Dr. Russell Blaylock , a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi."
"ASPARTAME DANGERS" Journal-World (Lawrence, KS) - Thursday, February 11, 1999 Quote: "Dr. Russell Blaylock , neurosurgeon, said that aspartame stimulates brain neurons to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees. He has written a book: "Excitotoxins: Taste That Kills." "
"26 MILLION AMERICANS ARE TROUBLED BY MIGRAINE HEADACHES REGULARLY" St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Sunday, January 18, 1998 Quote: "Monosodium glutamate, better known as MSG, has been linked to migraines. MSG is found in hundreds of foods, and the severity of the headache depends on the quantity consumed, according to Russell Blaylock , author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills.""
Crayhon, Robert. "MSG: Not the taste of health." Total Health. Mar/Apr97, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p53 Abstract: Focuses on the adverse effects of the additive monosodium glutamate (MSG). Several names of MSG; Findings of Dr. Russell Blaylock about MSG in causing nuerodegenerative diseases.
"FOOD POLICE FULL OF HALF-BAKED IDEAS" Plain Dealer (Cleveland, OH) - Sunday, June 11, 1995 Quote: "Some experts, in fact - among them neuroscientist Dr. John Olney, Dr. George Schwartz, an internationally known physician, toxicologist and author, and Dr. Russell Blaylock , a neurosurgeon and associate professor of neurosurgery - have maintained that these "excitotoxins" can cause brain damage and behavorial problems, especially in children and adolescents, and help accelerate the course of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's."
"WHAT'S EATING KIDS? MAYBE IT'S THEIR DIETS" THE ORLANDO SENTINEL - Sunday, March 12, 1995 Quote: "Hundreds of millions of infants and young children are at great risk and their parents are not even aware of it, warns Dr. Russell Blaylock , author of a recent book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills. Blaylock is a neurosurgeon and associate professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi. According to Blaylock.."
"MSG'S POSSIBLE EFFECT ON BRAIN LATEST FOCUS OF CONTINUED DEBATE" - Daily News of Los Angeles (CA) - Thursday, August 4, 1994 Quote: " The latest questions about MSG risk have been raised by Dr. Russell Blaylock , a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, who speculates that .."
Pratt, Steven. "FLAVOR-ENHANCING MSG IS EVERYWHERE, BUT IS IT HARMLESS OR AN "EXCITOTOXIN"? Chicago Tribune July 28, 1994"
"How Far from Sugar Is Splenda?", Bloomberg BusinessWeek, February 01, 2005
"it's all a plot to anti-vaccination conspiracy nuts", The Montreal Gazette, November 08 2009
"The Hidden Danger in Your Food", CBN.com, February 17, 2007

Per WP:AUTHOR #3, "multiple book reviews in reliable sources".

Irene Alleger. "Integrative oncology." Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. June 2004 i251 p137(1). Abstract: Book review of Natural Strategies For Cancer Patients (Source: Health & Wellness Resource Center | (Gale))
"Nutritional Supplementation Can Protect Against Many Bioterrorism Agents" Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients. Aug/Sep2003, Issue 241/242, p32. Abstract: Reviews Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life (Source: Ebsco Academic Search Complete)
Meyer, Del. "Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (Book)". Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Spring2003, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p128. Abstract: Reviews Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive by Russell Blaylock
Alan L. Miller. "Natural Strategies For Cancer Patients". Alternative Medicine Review. Nov 2003 v8 i4 p451(1). Abstract: Book review of Natural Strategies For Cancer Patients (Source: Health & Wellness Resource Center | (Gale))
Charlotte H. McCabe. "Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life". International Journal of Humanities and Peace. 19.1 (Annual 2003) Abstract: Reviews Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life (Source: Academic OneFile (Gale))
Hoffer, A. "Treating Epilepsy Naturally (Book)". Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. 2002 4th Quarter, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p231. Abstract: Reviews the non-fiction book 'Treating Epilepsy Naturally. A Guide to Alternative and Adjunct Therapies,' by Patricia Murphy and Russell Blaylock. (Source: Health & Wellness Resource Center | (Gale))
"Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" SciTech Book News. 18 (Nov. 1994): p26. Abstract: Reviews Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills (Source: Academic OneFile (Gale))
Hunter, Beatrice Trum. "Excitotoxins, The Taste that Kills", Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients. Aug/Sep94, Issue 133/134, p952. Abstract: Reviews Excitotoxins, The Taste that Kills (Source: Ebsco Academic Search Complete)
"Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills" Nutrition Health Review: The Consumer's Medical Journal. 1994, Issue 71, p17. Abstract: Reviews Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills (Source: Ebsco Academic Search Complete)
Patty Campbell. "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills." Wilson Library Bulletin. Oct 1993 v68 n2 p100(2). Abstract: Book review of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills (Source: Health & Wellness Resource Center | (Gale))

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a notable alternative medicine personality involved in various forms of quackery and fringe beliefs. It should be possible to find skeptic sources which mention him and debunk his nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient cultural footprint to merit encyclopedic biography, whether or not one agrees with his controversial views. Sourced out well enough to cover the verifiability issue, I think. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP i'm not an editor so i'm not arguing based on your guidelines. i'm a user and i'm letting you know how users use your site. i needed to know what year his book 'excitotoxins' was written so i did what i always do when i want to know something - came to wikipedia. the content here goes beyond encyclopedic and that is why i use it. when wiki was starting it, it wanted to be an online encyclopedia that was as good as a 'real' one. you've developed something that has surpassed your original goal. grow with it and allow the site to become better than a 'real' encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.226.190 (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New bangla academy building[edit]

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

Unquestionably un-notable, and merge is difficult and probably unnecessary, as there would be undue weight issues. Benboy00 (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to believe anything can be salvaged. Not that the content is even all that relevant, but it would be also difficult to verify. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content has already been copied into the Bangla Academy article. The design competition could possibly be sourced, but there is no reason suggested for independent notability of the structure. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like a very good job, especially from such a terrible starting article. Also, I only just realised how advertisey this article was. Benboy00 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia national football team strip[edit]

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

Topic has not been the subject of significant coverage, and consensus that these types of articles are non-notable can be found at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 13:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – violates WP:NOTGALLERY and would not be expected to be found in an encyclopedia. Absence of reliable sources dealing with this topic (as opposed to the national football team itself). C 679 14:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and previous consensus on separate kit articles. Contains more prose than similar articles, but this is not representative of significant discussion in reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per C 679 and Fenix down. -- Brayan Jaimes (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium national football team kit[edit]

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

Topic has not been the subject of significant coverage, and consensus that these types of articles are non-notable can be found at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 13:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – violates WP:NOTGALLERY and would not be expected to be found in an encyclopedia. Absence of reliable sources dealing with this topic (as opposed to the national football team itself). C 679 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per C679 and the long-standing consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and previous consensus on separate kit articles. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Pike Grady[edit]

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

A person of purely local note, as indicated by his obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Memorial for a local hero. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. My condolences to his family and friends. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador national football team kit[edit]

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

Just a gallery of football kits with no evidence of significant coverage. Violates a number of other policies including WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:N. Nothing here which is not/cannot be included at El Salvador national football team#Kit. C 679 12:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Past consensus can be found at this AfD and this AfD and this AfD and this AfD. Giant Snowman 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and previous consensus on separate kit articles. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here that can't be covered in literally two or three sentences in the parent article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transcendental Meditation. v/r - T P 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation research[edit]

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

While TM itself is a notable subject, the meta-topic of research about TM is not notable. This article is just serving as a POV fork, attempting to ignore WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS by listing every study done on the topic (most of which were done by proponents of TM) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable material to Research on meditation. This would put relevant information in one place. (I'm assuming that TM is generally recognized as a type of meditation.) It would also have the effect of distancing this material from the controversy about the TM movement itself. BayShrimp (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why Gaijin42 thinks this is not a notable subject. It is well sourced from a number of different sources. I also fail to see how this article is attempting to ignore WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. As far as I know most of the sources that are used to describe the research are secondary sources. Gaijin42 how does this article attempt to list every study done on the topic (most of which were done by proponents of TM) as you describe?--Uncreated (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: There's clearly an issue with excessive content forking in the Transcendental Meditation topic area, not to mention a walled garden problem. We somehow manage to cover all of the research on broad topics like hypertension or acute myeloid leukemia without a spinoff article, so I'm not sure we need one here, where there's very little high-quality research to speak of. Parts of the article should be merged to Transcendental Meditation (or Transcendental Meditation technique? or Transcendental Meditation movement? Again, way too much content forking). MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with MastCell; there is a problem with pov-forking in this area, leading to lots of extra articles, usually quite lengthy, and the walled garden is carefully gardened & pruned to reflect one point of view only. Diligently "merging" all this content whilst also bringing it in line with our norms would take a great deal of editor time, for little benefit; better to simply redirect to a different article and then focus on improving that if necessary. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding notability... the search term [“transcendental meditation” research] generated the following results:
- Google News: 27 matches for the month of Oct. 2013 alone. [51]
- The New York Times archive: 161 matches [52]
- Google Scholar: 12,500 matches [53]
- Google (general): 465,00 matches [54]
And editors not familiar with the topic should note that the fork was created as a result of an agreement between Will Beback, BWB and Littleolive oil in this talk page discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most relevant portion of that discussion was " Is all of the TM research with out merit as the lead now suggests". As WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS both mention, popular media/news stories are not to be trusted in science/medical articles, and WP:PRIMARY studies, conducted by proponents of the activity in question are doubly not acceptable (particularly when the WP:SECONDARY studies point out major flaws and issues, and non-reproducability). At a minimum the article must be trimmed down to what is acceptable under WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. What would be left (imo) would be mostly the Transcendental_Meditation_research#Research_quality section, which can quite easily fit into the main article, so there is no reason for a fork. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a closer look at the sources being used in the article, including the ones deleted a few days ago by Bobrayner. All sources are MEDRS-compliant research reviews that include studies on TM. In that regard, it's not clear why Bobrayner deleted such sources as this statement from the American Heart Association that appeared in the core medical journal Hypertension, or the review by the NIH Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or this review that appeared in the top journal Pediatrics.

There are no news reports being used as sources in the article. Spicemix (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability seems clear per my comment above and after looking at the sources I find a distinct lack of primary sources and news reports and instead I see highly compliant research reviews being used per WP:MEDRS.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument about Google hits is irrelevant to the question of whether we should have a standalone article on this topic. We don't base that decision on search-engine results—hence we have no standalone article on hypertension research (despite 29 million Google hits) nor on leukemia research (despite 37 million Google hits). MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument about Google hits is irrelevant to my statement that the "notability seems clear". As for the forking, the article was created in Dec 2010 via unanimous consensus by Will Beback, Littleolive oil and BwB, three editors who often disagreed in this topic area. The new article was created per WP:FORK which says: "editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage..... Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking" [bold added]. I'm concerned by what appears to be a combined effort to suppress legitimate content supported by, published, peer reviewed research reviews, first by deleting key sections of the article and its sources and then nominating it for deletion under the blatantly false claim that the article is non-notable and based on non-MEDRS compliant sources. A more intelligent approach would be to Delete/Redirect the Transcendental Meditation article per WP:REDUNDANTFORK since it only provides copies of the lead paragraphs of other articles, including this one under AfD discussion. I am in favor of consolidation in this topic area and that's why I have nominated several articles for deletion and/or merger this year. However, this nomination is as unproductive as this TM technique AfD nomination by the same editor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments surely. The proposing statement is incorrect in every particular: I think the editor hasn't read the article or the history of its creation. Spicemix (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is a well sourced document that uses primarily secondary sources. The suggestion that it is a POV fork is erroneous as well as the suggestion it does not conform to WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS.--Uncreated (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — Uncreated (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete not a proper subject and essentially only a clearinghouse for Maharishi cultists to display their synthetic original research. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Blatant content forking. There is no reason why this cannot be handled in the main article. Walled garden issues appear to be accurate as well. Yobol (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Unnecessary content fork - seems to be padded out with sources talking about meditation in general rather than TM in particular. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this is not a proper article subject. Any usable sources can be used elsewhere or stored on someone's userspace subpage. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Yobol, MastCell, Bobrayner, particularly the "walled garden" issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment please see related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TM-Sidhi_program Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We are exactly at 1/3 keeps, so let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary fork of Transcendental Meditation technique and other existing TM articles. It is clear that Transcendental Meditation is a notable topic, but Transcendental Meditation research is not notable as a distinct topic: I can find zero reliable sources where "Transcendental Meditation research" is the subject of a sentence. A merge to Research on meditation is also possible, but less desirable, given the WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS problems here. -- 101.119.15.147 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 21:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Price-Mitchell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Article lacks secondary references. Not sure founding National ParentNet Association is grounds for notability. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. Prod was removed by spa with a single edit. reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reliable secondary sources appear to be: MLive, The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present, Beyond Smart and The Practice of Teaching. I don't believe this is enough to show notability. MLive is local to Michigan and not much to write a bio with. Beyond Smart and Practice of Teaching are trivial mentions (not "significant coverage"). The coverage in The Crucial Voice of the People is better. If more sources or other notability criteria are found I might change position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This Google Scholar search shows some citations of her work. The MLive reference is pretty good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created an account in order to edit this article. I didn’t mean for it to get deleted, but was looking to clean it up and remove the red tag that was at the top of it. I am familiar with her work so I have a little more insight and thought that my knowledge would be useful for the article. Regarding her notability, the references state she is an expert in her field. This is supported by at least 2 sources. As far as MLive, I realize that it seems like a regional publication based on the name, but it has an Alexa rank of 799 in the U.S. This shows that there are either a lot of people in Michigan or that it is getting views from quite a few places. It is run by Booth Newspapers (A.K.A. MLive Media Group). It is not as popular as The New York Times, but I would put it a little bit higher than a local or regional source. I am not sure what else I can do for the article other. I thought that the references I added were the type that Wikipedia wants to show that she is notable. Her work is cited in Google Scholar as well as several books as well. --Anropolos (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, there are multiple indications of notability, including a regular column in a national magazine (Psychology Today) and at least 5 mentions in Young, Victoria M., The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present, 2012, Rowan & Littlefield Education, Lanham, MD. This seems to qualify for WP:PROF criteria #4. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This hardly meets WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuğrul Erat[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON, no problem with recreating if he actually plays in FPL or graduates to full intl team. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence he meets the notability criteria as detailed above. C 679 10:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earnhardt–Gordon rivalry[edit]

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

Unremarkable unsupported rivalry. Article fails to support premise that there was a rivalry between the two drivers. Article lacks references that support premise. reddogsix (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources discussing any special "rivalry" between these two drivers, other than the obvious fact that every NASCAR driver is a rival of every other NASCAR driver. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NASCAR drivers are competitors so every driver rivals everyone else. The article compares their careers which is just a duplicate of their articles. There's nothing special to their rivalry. The sources aren't even specific to their rivalry. Royal broil 04:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I admit that they were rivals, my beliefs do not determine notability on Wikipedia. Every NASCAR driver has 42 other rivals every race. JG and Dale Sr. are also business partners, but that also would not add to the notability. Gordon-Earnhardt has just as much notability as a Jeff vs. Jeff "rivalry". Zappa O Mati 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this rivalry. Top competitors in every sport have always been rivals. Nothing unusual happened to distinguish this rivalry from others.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin Ashley[edit]

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

Non notable minor league ballplayer.. deprodded by article creator... no evidence of independent notability. Spanneraol (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable. PROD shouldn't have been removed.--Yankees10 03:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid assertion of notability. I don't even know why this article was created, was he on a 40 man roster at one point? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The LIDOM is a winter league for domestic minor leaguers and like the Venezuelan league players mentioned above, is not truly a "top-level national league" comparable to MLB or NPB. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Userfied to User:Herman Wilkins. SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Wilkins[edit]

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

Unsourced article is an apparent autobiography. Film appearances are either minor parts in significant works, or are medium parts in minor works. A quick search for sources found nothing usable, and very little that's not usable. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy) Doesn't satisfy WP:ACTOR. He stars in Hogtown, but WP:ACTOR requires multiple significant roles not just one (and although it has a little coverage it's not clear that Hogtown is notable). Other roles are all minor parts. Wrote and directed a film, Affairs in Order, which doesn't appear notable - IMDb doesn't list any external reviews and I can't find sources. Has co-written another film, Broken Cookies, which doesn't appear to be notable either. No biography on AllMovie Guide. He may become notable soon, but right now he doesn't meet the criteria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not qualify as notable. --Lockley (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Herman Wilkins as autobiography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Yitzchak Paltiel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. References are trivial mentions of individual. Fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: as refs are either A) Jewish/Hasidic community news sites notifying readers of events including subject as guest, B) Jewish/Hasidic organization sites with lecturer bios. The subject is a noted scholar within the Chabad Hasidic community. His lectures have been featured on both community websites as well as privately run sites. Ref format is a mess, my apologies for rushing the article. Also, I probable should have clarified a few details in the main body text.

In general, the Chabad movement places great emphasis on the study of Jewish mystical texts. The subject is very knowledgable in the area and thus accounts for the recognition within his community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.am.a.qwerty (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 November 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The refs look lousy. The Torah Cafe ref notes it as "via insidechassidus.org", and links to a page that points out that the subject is founder of that website, which makes it hardly the sort of subjective third person we seek. The front page of TheYeshiva.Net lists him as one of their teachers, so that is not a third party. The next ref is a page of insidechassidus.org, so again, his website. National Jewish Retreat page is just a listing of him speaking. JHFweb.org ref is a catalogue of their recordings, including some by him. Crownheights.ch is a passing mention of him in a photo caption. Machonchana is a catalog of staff. Chabadwesthempstead is promoting him as speaker, so again, not uninvolved third party. The text at jml.org.au is just a copy of the text from TheYeshiva.net, where he is a teacher. Chabadinfo.com is an event listing. I've got to stop at the moment, but it's looking like all event listings and non--third-party sources. We are not doubting that he is a teacher and a lecturer, but doing such things would be expected to generate the sort of listings were seeing, and neither role makes him inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after looking at the rest of the refs, and performing some searches, I'm just not finding the kind of sourcing that meets our notability guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find anything that suggests that the subject is particularly notable even within Chabad—though he is certainly not completely obscure. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject
- A) is well-known within the Chabad community.
- B) lectures at Chabad institutions around the US, and abroad.
- C) is frequently mentioned on Chabad community news sites (usually while covering events at various Chabad institutions.
- D) His lectures are featured on his own site, as well as on theyeshiva.net (run by Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson), his lectures on the yeshiva.net have also been posted on community websites.
- E) There is additional material on the subject, including: an interview with the subject in a established Chabad magazine, and an article on the Chabad movement's main website on the subject's personal history with Tay–Sachs disease.

If you are looking for something specific, let me know which ref would suffice. Thanks in advance, I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question With regard's to the subject's activities in raising awareness of Jewish genetic diseases, does that help the subject's notability? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is de-facto convention of which most of the panelists here may not be aware. Historically, there have been many articles on rabbis very similar to this one in the sense that they have sources that do not satisfy WP:RS (e.g. web pages, trivial mentions, etc) and have gone into AfD as a result. A great many of these have been kept either by consensus or by default by the efforts of editors seeking to have greater rabbinical presence on WP, several examples being Avraham Friedman, Tzvi Berkowitz, and Chaim Rabinowitz. Such articles have continued to exist for years on WP without further challenge. While I have advocated against the practice of keeping articles at this level because it basically amounts to special exemption from WP notability and sourcing guidelines, it might be important to consider this phenomenon relative to the article on Paltiel. Thoughts? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Every article needs to stand on its own merits. De-facto or not it fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The refs simply don't show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Regarding the pages cited by Agricola44: I worked on the Chaim Rabinowitz page. The sources to books and newspapers are far better than these primary references to Chabad sites and community news sites. Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabinowitz article does seem to have improved somewhat so that now only about half its citations are web pages. Sources for Friedman and Berkowitz articles remain as pitiful as they were several years ago. My point is that it is not waxing to question whether articles all within the same extremely narrow scope should not be judged by the same standards...standards which seem to have been set somewhat conclusively a number of years ago by articles like the three I mentioned above. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment the subject on this case holds a unique position as a community mashpia. A mashpia is not a regular rabbi, and is a position of note within this particular group. In this case, we have to consider that outsiders (and outside sources) of the Chabad group to not necessarily reflect the status of the position held. Because this is a situation where such a subject will be a notable personality within the community, and at the same time, outsiders to the group may not understand the significance of the position, notability should be established by the range of community sources available.

The position of Mashpia is pretty much unique to the Chabad group. So we should modify the bar for notability to filter those who are widely regarded within the group, versus those who are not.

The question of notability should, in this case, reflect that. Do not ask "is the subject notable enough to appear in secondary sources" if these sources would probably not reflect the value attributed to the subject's title by the members of the group.

The bar for such a subject should be the notability attributed to him/her in the group. In this case the community institutions where the subject was a guest speaker include both local and abroad ones. The fact that the subject is referred to as a referred to as a community mashpia in both established Chabad publications and community news sites, aside from the regular gig of teaching and lecturing, the subject is notable within the community for his work promoting awareness of Tay Sachs and other Jewish genetic diseases.

Wrap it all up, and you have a mashpia of note within Chabad. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note For those familiar with Yoel Kahn, a very notable Mashpia within Chabad. Kahn holds no official title other than Majpia. And again, for those familiar, the subject is very much notable within the community, and I would not be surprised if there were few sources other than community ones documenting his notability.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The arguments from qwerty like "outsiders to the group may not understand the significance..." and "we should modify the bar for notability..." precisely reflect the phenomenon to which I am referring above. If the consensus is to delete, similar articles (like the three I mentioned) should probably be revisited. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That there are some realms where notability is harder to establish than others is a given, but even were we open to some separate guideline, the level where I.am.a.qwerty seems trying to set the bar is problematically low. There are certainly teachers in other realms who might speak in more than one location and in more than one country without rising to the levels of notability that our guidelines aim for. The mere mention of someone with a subjective application of a term (particularly in articles like this which seem to laden compliments on everything and thus cannot be assumed to be an objective measurer of his community standing). Even if we were to accept description of him as a "mashpia [...] in Crown Heights", being a community thought leader can be seen perhaps as roughly equal to being on a town council in a political sense, a level of politician which we would not generally include a page for. (And that description from Collive looks like boilerplate language taken from some standard press info, given how that exact phrasing appears over several years in a couple different sources.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my observations above. Agricola44 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bonhomme[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Second-level executive at a non-notable nonprofit. No Independent Reliable Sources are provided at the article, and I found none in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Reifer[edit]

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

No claim to notability.. run of the mill minor leaguer. Spanneraol (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable--Yankees10 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:BASEBALL/N. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League, the highest-level league in the Dominican Republic, therefore he passes WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is as Alex says. The baseball notability guidelines have been neutered, but as the Dominican Professional Baseball League has been cited as the top level baseball in the Dominican Republic and Adam Reifer has played in that league, criteria 2 has still been satisfied for WP:BASE/N, making this an instant keep per the guidelines. The claims against are null, it seems. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The dominican has no "top-level" leagues. The guideline does not say "highest level in x country" it says "top-level" and that signifies a quality of play. Winter leagues can not be considered top level. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think its time for a discussion at WP:Baseball with this. It would be kind of crappy if all these AFD's were kept and a later discussion was decided that those leagues are not "top-level".--Yankees10 17:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable inconsistent rational being used here. Until now, "top level" was meant to refer to the top-level league in each country (for example, Henry Bonilla's AfD cited his participation in the Italian League as reason to keep), not whether it was of top level talent and competition among the world's leagues. Per previous interpretation of the rule, the Venezuelan and Dominican leagues in question are top level. Alex (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I think Spanneraol is reading more into "top-level" than can be reasonably read. If the person is playing at the highest professional level in their country, that counts as "top-level" to me. It doesn't say that the player must be playing to MLB standards, it says they have to be playing in a "top-level league", not "at a top-level of skill". Heck, I know a couple MLB players that would qualify for deletion under Spanneraol's criteria. ;) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, potentially to The Fast and the Furious (film series). Clear consensus for a merge, left up to the editing community to carry out. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious[edit]

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

Article is completely redundant to The Fast and the Furious (film series). The film series article covers the films and the related merchandise tie-ins such as the video games. This article does not offer any content beyond what the film series article does, and is hogging the main name space. I propose deleting this article and creating a disambiguation page which combines the two disambiguation pages at The Fast and the Furious (disambiguation) and Fast and Furious (disambiguation). I don't see what point there is in retaining a bare-bones article that simply replicates the coverage of an already existing more comprehensive article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move The Fast and the Furious (film series) to this title, or the disambiguation page. This is more likely to be a search term for either one of those, and the article itself is redundant and offers nothing to readers. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or move The Fast and the Furious (film series) to this title and expand its coverage of the video games to make it a complete franchise article. Otherwise, this is going to end up going in circles forever, because the proposal in the nomination violates well-considered policy. First, WP:DABCONCEPT requires that we not have a disambiguation page at a title for which there is a primary topic, even if that primary topic is a broad concept. Even combining The Fast and the Furious (disambiguation) and Fast and Furious (disambiguation) would necessarily exclude, for example, 2 Fast 2 Furious and Fast Five because these are not title matches to either, which means that we will either end up excluding films that should be listed at the title, or we will have some sort of a hybrid article that is not a disambiguation page. Most importantly, the nominator has been unable to demonstrate that the Fast and the Furious films are unrelated to each other, or that the one obscure film sharing the title, The Fast and the Furious (1955 film), is notable enough to be ambiguous to the franchise. In other words, there is no lack of a primary topic to justify having a disambiguation page at this title, or any other topic than the modern franchise. However, I would be fine with expanding the The Fast and the Furious (film series) to explicitly cover all media in this franchise, and moving it to the primary topic title. This would be consistent with how we treat virtually all other franchises of this scope (see, e.g., Harry Potter, Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate, Doctor Who, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Masters of the Universe, Popeye, Sailor Moon), unless it is determined that a specific installment of the franchise is the primary topic. bd2412 T 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirection title or as a disambiguation title. Fast and Furious (film series) should be renamed Fast and Furious (franchise) and be the main franchise article for it already is in the first place. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the disambiguation articles and I feel that this title should be the main title of The Fast and the Furious (disambiguation). With the other article replacing it as the franchise link. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you that I have fixed probably hundreds of disambiguation links to the page, and none of them are ever intended for anything but the film, which is basically a subtopic of the franchise as a whole. bd2412 T 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good clue that it is the primary topic. If you believe so we could decide to move the title there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. bd2412 T 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Fast and the Furious (film series) (which really should be renamed to The Fast and the Furious (franchise)). This title should then be made into the disambiguation page currently at The Fast and the Furious (disambiguation). Fortdj33 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greening of Detroit[edit]

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

Non-notable non-profit, fails WP:ORG. Allowing an article for this extremely unimportant org will make it difficult to add articles about legitimately notable orgs in Detroit. Furthermore, I believe the author may be an editor paid by the organization to write a flattering article about it. Detroit Joseph (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can he do that? Is that how Wikipedia runs? Articles can just get deleted for basically no reason? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of the Knowledge (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't get deleted for no reason. That's why there's a process of debate here. You are welcome to defend the position that the article should be kept, as long as you can justify it with Wikipedia's policies on article inclusion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I see mentions from the local CBS affiliate [65], the local ABC affiliate [66], the Detroit Free Press [67], and Fortune/CNN [68]. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Comment - It appears we posted at the same time, so just a note to also see the sources in my !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kudos to Northamerica1000 for finding the sources that convincingly demonstrate notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stub article, but even with what's here organization seems notable. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now substantially improved - 'start' class - well done, Northamerica1000. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to say "delete" or is that understood? Detroit Joseph (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is counted as your delete !vote; only one !vote is allowed in AfD discussions. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. It's obvious that the topic passes notability guidelines; why do you still want it deleted? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they overinflate their importance plus I also think this might be an instance of paid advocacy. If so, the strategy is brilliant: who would suspect a shill if the article is as messed up as this one was at the beginning? Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am puzzled. The article was terribly written, factually incorrect, and not supported by the citations given. I rewrote it a bit, but probably needs additional work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article. I've also performed some work to improve it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable as above. User:Hgilbert (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They've received a hefty amount of good and local coverage and there's significant improvement. Good information, good article. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear agreement that the subject is unable to support its own article. The content is poorly sourced and mostly comprised of fluff writing, so keeping it undeleted for the sake of a later content merge seems impractical. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prager University[edit]

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

Despite the name, this organization is not a university; it does not even appear to offer what is normally considered educational coursework. Rather, it is the name for a collective series of video releases, headed by a radio host, Dennis Prager. That isn't to say that such an organization cannot be notable, but I cannot seem to find anything in the form of a reliable source that would help this meet our notability and WP:CORP thresholds. Some hits that initially look like promising review sites, e.g. College Insurrection, but it is unfortunately not much more than a blog that publishes user-submitted "articles". Tarc (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Make the content into a section on his page. The RS citations are kind of borderline—sites like the Daily Caller and pro-Israel groups like StandWithUs. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if any of the content is usable. As it stands, the article has just six references. Four are to the group's own website, one to the IMDB, and one, to the sole arguably reliable source, treats the entire project as a joke. This deserves at best one or two sentences on the article about Dennis Prager. RolandR (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Said "sole arguably RS" is actually a blog, so even the "one or two sentences" option is dubious, at best. This verges on WP:CSD#G11. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Weak arguments abound on both sides of the debate, but the "deletes" seem to put forth something of a stronger case. At least two of the votes in favor of keeping cite very broad rationales, almost to the point of being inapplicable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism[edit]

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

Book does not come remotely close to meeting any of the five criteria for notable books in WP:BKCRIT. Article currently has exactly 0 citations and book itself has virtually only been reviewed by fringe, ideologically-connected sources (often by publications of the Mises Institute, Hoppe's employer, in articles written by friends and co-workers such as Walter Block and Stephan Kinsella) Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability, and there are no sources. TFD (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2013 (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/2013 November 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources, should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Article has WP:POTENTIAL, and WP:ATD should be followed. (Article improvements have been undertaken.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what gives you reason to believe that the article has "potential"? Please share. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srich32977, "potential" typically means that a wiki entry would meet the criteria for notability if the article were improved/references were added. You can cite that, but you haven't really made an argument for keeping the article until you specify which criterion/criteria the book satisfies. Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide and reliable sources that could be used - I have been unable to find any. TFD (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet requirements at all. MilesMoney (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have located three book reviews from the Freeman, Reason papers and the Mises Institute. The last review is not independent of Hoppe, but the first two reviews seem to be. There is also some criticism/review of the book in this Reason papers article. There is nothing in WP policy regarding notability that bans ideologically similar sources; independent reliable sources are enough. 2 independent book reviews (or 3 if you consider the last criticism/review to be in enough depth) seem to be enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT for notability. The article needs better sourcing and I'm not sure that the list of chapters is useful, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the FEE review is now posted as a reference, but not incorporated into the prose. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark V. I'm curious. As an uninvolved editor, perhaps you can tell me is there a WP:RS policy that professors or other experts who happen to be loose associates of subjects (same institutes, fraternities, academic associations, etc.) cannot be used to ref their material? (Or at least nothing positive about them.) I keep hearing this claim from a few newer editors, but in 7 years haven't seen the policy. Mention their name and affiliation, sure, in a neutral, non-damning fashion, but not use at all? User:Carolmooredc talk 15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a specific policy regarding colleagues in the same department or institution. With regard to notability, the requirement is for multiple independent sources. The essay Wikipedia:Independent sources, referred to by WP:RS, indicates that independence means that there should be no financial or legal relationship with the subject; there should also be no COI with respect to the WP article. The essay also says that independence doesn't imply the source must be neutral. So above, one could argue that that someone from the Mises institute is not independent, nor someone like Kinsella who may make money promoting Hoppe's work. At the other end of the spectrum, a search for "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" -Springer garners 229 hits in GScholar with plenty of refs not Block, Kinsella or Hoppe. Some of these are independent refs that could also be used to help discuss the book's reception, impact, etc. --Mark viking (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. I just think there's a difference between a loose affiliation, which most of these academics and scholars have, and actual employment by an Institute. And even then just mentioning affiliation is enough. Going through those 299 hits to find which ones not just a footnote is a lot of work, of course; but evidence many WP:RS take the book/author seriously. :-) CM-DC talk 05:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FRINGE#Independent sources rather plainly. No sources that aren't anarcho-capitalist fringe theorists have discussed this topic. jps (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jps, the link re sources certainly applies to scientific subjects, such as astronomy, but Hoppe's book is simply political and economic theory/opinion/ideas. As heterodox, the ideas get a balanced presentation in WP. Even WP:FRINGE subjects get a balanced coverage: we use WP:ITA and follow WP:PARITY to do so. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE applies to more than scientific subjects. jps (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, the cited links do not apply to the AfD decision. Please read the notability requirements for books and state your view in terms of applicable WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (OP) The bar for notability with respect to books is quite high, per WP:BKCRIT. Opponents of deletion have only cited fringe ideological sources, which is nowhere near sufficient to justify the article's existence. Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the Originator and at least two of the "Deletes" are ~~battle ground~~ editors in Austrian economics general sanctions articles, Hoppe being a battleground article, really taints the process. With three minutes of searching I found one good and 3 potential WP:RS on Questia; and 60 mentions and counting on google.scholar. I can't have my wiki editing dictated by others' AfDs, but if they want to improve the encyclopedia they'll take a few minutes to ref things. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 07:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, please focus on content, not contributors. Strong arguments for deletion have been presented above that 2 of the three editors who are not involved in the "battleground" you speak of endorsed. Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out bias, especially on administrative type lists, is appropriate per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. Creating articles about serious works of non-fiction should be encouraged. I am sorry we are even having this debate. (NB, I agree the list of chapters is not useful, and have removed it - but this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted or not). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep the 9 year old article. not enough support here to delete, move to close. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Widlansky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player. Previous afd closed as merge but since he is no longer with any team that is no longer an option. Even if he should hook on with another organization, he is a fringe prospect at best with little chance to make the majors. Not enough sourcing for GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 01:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has appeared in the Australian Baseball League, which means that he meets point 2 of WP:MLB/N. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate it, his article needs to be kept according to the current wording of WP:BASEBALL/N. Alex (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Simply no consensus to delete, although the article does appear to need significant work to condense and focus the content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film)[edit]

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

Questionable notability for a standalone article, poss. WP:COPYVIO problems, definite WP:QUOTEFARM Additional information- EVERY SINGLE paragraph in the body starts with something along the lines of "So and so said" and then launches into an extremely long quote, and there is virtually no nonquoted text in the article's body. It is excessive to the point of being a severe copyright violation issue. So even if the consensus ends up that in principle the topic is notable, the article as written right now has to be taken down, because its not a matter of trimming a little here and there, it is a matter of massive cuts, and then writing a significant amount of new text to make it an article with quotes instead of just a string of quotes which is all it is right now. For policy guidance seeWP:QUOTEFARM, which gives examples of overuse of quotations such as:

"Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
"Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations."
"Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

Wikipedia policy specifically states

"The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work."Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUMMARY: "Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article.... A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." I saw your comment at Talk:Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) and have to disagree with your assessment. We cannot compare Wikipedia to "normal" encyclopedias. Per WP:5P, "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." The only limitation to apply is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I think that this topic is a viable one, considering how scrutinized this film has been. You could make a case to shorten some of this article's sections and address excessive quoting, but that does not mean we should erase this topic from the encyclopedia. This sort of subtopic is uncommon but does exist; see items at Category:Themes in works of fiction. I believe that we should encourage this kind of subtopic because it is a closer look at a film. A well-analyzed film could not fit all of the coverage on the main article, so splitting it off as a stand-alone article can suffice. Readers at the main article don't have to be overwhelmed, and those who are interested in going in depth about the subtopic can make the trip to the secondary article. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the reasons cited by the proposing editor are reasons for deletion, they are good reasons for the article to be edited and improved where necessary. This same editor has made a merge proposal, as well, suggesting this article be merged into the main film article, so I wonder what his real goal is here. He seems to simply dislike this article and wants to be rid of it, by one means or another. Erik gives very good reasons above for why this article should not be deleted and I agree with him. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a pointy nomination after this ass handing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to failure to Assume Good Faith Since The Old Jacobite and Lugnuts have chosen not to adhere to Assume Good Faith, I will respond to their allegations. First, for Lugnuts to attempt to characterize a minor misunderstanding between Garth Griffith-Jones and myself that ended quickly with no hard feelings between either of us as an "ass-handing" is entirely inaccurate, the language he used was inappropriate, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues with the article. If TheOldJacobite really believes that copyright violations are not grounds for deletion when the article is nothing but copyrighted material, then he would do well to better acquaint himself with Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations, which states "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information, and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for detailed instructions." as well as Wikipedia's policy on unambiguous copyright violation being grounds for Speedy Deletion. However I chose to cut the article some slack and not nominate it for that. My reasons for withdrawing the Merger Proposal are very clearly stated on the article's talk page, they were a better understanding of the reasons people did not want the material in the film's main article in the first place, and TheOldJacobite should know this, as he was in that discussion. He should also know that I praised this article and the work that went into it, so his claims that I "simply dislike" it are entirely without merit. IF there are any agendas at work here, the previous discussions (which I was not a part of) on the main film article's talk page indicate that they are that some people have a strong sense of Page Ownership of this Themes and analysis text. While I feel for them because obviously a lot of work went into it, that doesn't exempt it for Wikipedia's policies on copyrighted material, or copyright law. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response of the Response to failure to Assume Good Faith. Read WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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