< 30 December	1 January >

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 Power Rangers characters. Never close on one !vote but redirect imho makes sense here so redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Hammond[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. Article is about a fictional character who clearly fails WP:GNG. It contains mostly plot summaries and trivial information, there are no ratings or receptions from reliable TV sources, and searching this name on various search engines comes up with various real-life people who are not notable enough for articles either. The actress portraying was also deemed unnotable. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about fictional Power Ranger characters who do not meet WP:GNG either with mostly plot summaries and trivia:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Power Rangers characters viable search terms, though not noteworthy enough for separate articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Al-Basri[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR. Reads like an essay JMHamo (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also a copy of Saleem Al-Basri so could be speedily deleted for that reason, but then this discussion would need to be had there? Melcous (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Speedy delete and redirect. Speedy delete as a WP:CSD#A10 of Saleem Al-Basri and redirect as ((R from alternative spelling)) to Saleem Al-Basri. Had the proper WP:BEFORE been performed, the About 491.000 results on subjects native name (may or may not all be about him) ought to have been noticed. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StyleDemocracy[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a marketing company. I can not find any sources that establish WP:ORG notability. - Mr X 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alexa places this firm's website around 5000th in Canada, which may be indicative of some kind of traction, but Highbeam and Google searches are not turning up coverage of the firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion; the user who created it even uses the same name. MiracleMat (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not return enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's been moved so not much to do other than close (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Constand[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO1E. We cannot create an encyclopedic article about a person only known for a single event (the 2004 alleged sexual assault by Bill Cosby and related lawsuits). Either the article should be renamed so that it does not pretend to be a biography or the material should be moved to Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and the article deleted. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she actually has independent notability for her collegiate and professional basketball career. On top of that, her life has been examined by independent, reliable sources. The article renaming would be the only other course of action. This story has become so big that it's narrative cannot be weaved into the other allegations, while still doing it justice. Given the other notable part of her life, the basketball career, I don't see how we can rename or delete. Please help add to the basketball career. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jumplike23: Every single source used in the article is related her suit against Cosby. I wasn't able to find any sources significantly covering Constand that are not related to her suit. If you can find any, I will withdraw the deletion nomination. Otherwise, it fails WP:BIO1E. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while she is (arguably) notable for a single event, her complaint against Cosby has become a very significant cultural and legal touchstone in the United States and is certain to have significant further coverage. Independent Wikipedia notoriety in such cases is related to the significance of the larger event; in anticipation of a criminal trial, deletion at this point would be premature and short-sighted. The material in her bio is going in an independent direction and is not easily incorporated back into Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations as suggested. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vesuvius Dogg: If her complaint is what is notable, the article title should reflect that. Would you favor renaming the article "Andrea Constand's sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby" or "Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr." (the name of the original lawsuit)? Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually like the Constand v. Cosby title you gave and would support that change as I think it is apt. This really isn't an article about her, so I will withdraw my argument above about her independent notability which I think she has. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm OK with a change, and Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr. seems the best option right now. Of course, that's the name of the civil suit resolved in November 2006, and the article we propose to develop will (presumably) incorporate the criminal case which recently developed largely as a result of revelations in Cosby's 2005 deposition. As long as the civil and criminal cases are correctly described and distinguished, and there is room for the criminal case to be reported on in this article as appropriate developments occur, I haven't a problem with this, but I do think the criminal case has the potential to eclipse the civil case which will then require this comprehensive article be renamed down the road. Does that make sense? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)ki n[reply]
  - The civil case and criminal cases are related as the prosecutor noted. A critical piece of evidence in the criminal case will be Cosby's admissions in the deposition. I note this to explain how the criminal case can naturally come under the heading of the civil case. The criminal case may eventually need its own article. like, commonwealth v. Cosby. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this woman is becoming more notable by the day due to all the attention the criminal charges against Bill Cosby have garnered. Now is not the time to consider deletion IMHO.--Hokeman (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. We don't have enough information to write a biography on her, but we have copious information on the case. I would support keeping this if it's renamed, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. We appear to be unanimous on keeping the article, with consensus for a name change. Am I seeing that right? Kaldari, should we go ahead? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have a SNOW consensus to keep this, and a pretty good majority for a rename. Go for it. I doubt you'll get any resistance. You should be able to use the move function without any problems, since the redlink above is still red. Move it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BUT CHANGE THE TITLE BACK TO Andrea Constand The CURRENT title certainly makes no sense since that refers to a lawsuit while the content covers many topics. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~but move back to Andrea Constand~~ The article covers various other topics tangentially related to the lawsuit, such as the criminal investigations and charge. As we get closer to the trial I suspect that will get its own article, in the meantime it works in the Constand article.LM2000 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed the article title to Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr. because I thought we had developed consensus. I am relieved (at least) that we are in agreement that the article has valuable information and should not be deleted. Also, we seem to be in agreement the subject is very likely to attract more information as the criminal case develops. (And probably not information about Constand's life, but rather, the particular circumstances of the January 2004 assault and its aftermath.)

I'm not sure it's really fair to Constand that Andrea Constand, the biography, becomes a catch-all article for all the complexities and extended tentacles of the ongoing criminal case. The title change was inspired by the fact that prosecutors have said that the criminal case developed out of revelations related to the civil case, and even Cosby's defenders (lawyers) have said the prosecution is a politically-motivated response to the unsealing of Cosby's 2005 deposition in that case. I've an extended comment on the relevant Talk page, but in short, I've argued that it's not necessarily even fair to Constand that 95% of her Wikipedia biography is dedicated to issues related to her alleged assailant's perversions. Her life story is surely better than that, and doesn't deserve to be defined by that. Here's hoping more people weigh in and we discover a workable solution. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my vote in fairness to the subject. The tangentially related material, such as charges and criminal investigations will probably end up in a separate article once we get closer to the trial.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this discussion as title has already changed. Thank you. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (Had I been aware of the first !vote I would of closed it - The delete !vote is simply about it being a one liner and the !vote mentions nothing about sources, ~~And just to state the obvious CNMall41 I don't nominate articles and hope they're cleaned up!, If I cannot find sources it gets nominated but if people can find sources then I'll close it....~~), Anyway really not sure how on earth I didn't find anything but obvious Keep, Thanks to those who've found sources. (Amended per note left on my TP[1]) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LatBus[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had extensive regional coverage (La Verdad and La Opinion de Murcia) plus some coverage by national media Cadena SUR, Europa Press, ditto. Also covered by 20 Minutos, Reason, La Informacion; articles are short but there are many of them. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or actually write an article; it's only ONE sentence. MiracleMat (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion is not cleanup or a way to get people to expand an article. There are plenty of reliable sources that cover the topic and as such meets WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Additional sources include, but are not limited to [2], [3], [4], [5], more... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 2 January 2016 (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 Lists of ambassadors. Sandstein 12:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Finland[edit]

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

List of lists article, not the expected search result. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Categorize - A more appropriate title would be Lists of ambassadors of Finland. But even then, sadly there aren't even enough articles on Finnish ambassadors. It would also appear that this is part of a larger project on the part of MarkYabloko. There must be a better way to do this, and so I'm suggesting categorization for now (See Category:Lists of ambassadors of the United States and Category:Lists of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations for examples). GabeIglesia (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of ambassadors, which now has this content within it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of ambassadors. Current article is misleadingly named, and no reason to keep since information is contained in target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete a list that contains 2 lists. And those lists have questionable notability themselves. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2016 (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 and redirect to Lists of ambassadors. Sandstein 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of ambassadors of Belgium[edit]

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

Misleading list of lists. Most lists of ambassadors list current ambassadors to/from a country. This is a list of list articles of ambassadors to or from a country historically, and it's not really the expected result when searching for the title. MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Categorize - Sadly there aren't enough articles on Belgian ambassadors. It would also appear that this is part of a larger project on the part of MarkYabloko. There must be a better way to do this, and so I'm suggesting categorization for now (See Category:Lists of ambassadors of the United States and Category:Lists of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations for examples). GabeIglesia (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of ambassadors, which now has this content within it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per GabeIglesia. there aren't enough articles on Belgian ambassadors. this is better handled as a category. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2016 (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. To delete, but a majority to keep. Also consensus that, if kept, it should be limited to notable sites and contain information beyond merely the names. Sandstein 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game websites[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No clearly defined criteria for inclusion; this is an indiscriminate list. It mashes up game journalism outlets, digital storefronts, and even some general purpose websites that are only tangentially about games. It does not provide any substantial advantage over Category:Video game websites. The page was previously deleted for the same reason in 2006. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can put in table format and add more data, but I don't know what you guys want to do with it after that. SharkD Talk 18:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_video_game_websites, this list provides no tangible benefits over the current function of Category:Video game websites (apart from collecting non-notable cruft). czar 19:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Axem and Czar. I'm fine with someone making up a draft for something with more use, but the current list is entirely useless. ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak delete~~ — I like the way the list looks now, but I do feel the indiscriminate nature is a big issue. I'd rather see something along the lines of "List of online gaming magazines" or "list of online game portals", which would be more useful than combining podcasts, database, digital distribution, etc, haphazardly like this. Currently, I do not see the use of putting Metacritic and Destructoid right next to eachother. Of course, for these suggested lists, clear inclusion criteria is still needed. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Maplestrip: It's a sortable list, so if you select on the arrows atop the list in the headers, you can sort it alphabetically. by date, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, that's why I'm so unsure. "Video game website" is just such an undefined thing. Is IMDb really a video game website? ~Mable (chat) 07:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed my stance to Neutral after reading the following discussion. ~Mable (chat) 17:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm over halfway done already with converting the page into a table and populating it with data. SharkD Talk 20:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm done. I had to remove several items, such as links to game developers, redlinks, sites with insuffient data, etc. SharkD Talk 21:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the list wasn't that it didn't have enough stuff but that its scope was indiscriminate—does it include all journalism sites, all Flash gaming sites, all sites that relate to gaming? Does a site relate to gaming for having a gaming section? In any event, we have categories that track whether being a video game website is a defining characteristic of the site, and the category will do a better job than we can hope to do with a list. czar 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The table can be sorted by the type of site. I didn't see any "general purpose" sites in the list. SharkD Talk 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Czar, as well as the arguments used in the previous AfD 10 years ago. Category:Video game websites and similar categories are enough. Sure, this article makes for a mildly interesting Excel sheet, but the content's not very encyclopedic. What practical purpose does this list serve? Ordering the websites by launch date, Alexa rank, etc.? Is that *really* a useful thing for the typical gamer? I don't think so. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Sorry. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it make a suitable project page? Anyway, if category intersections worked well, I would be all for just having the categories. SharkD Talk 01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Video game websites, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Also keep per WP:LISTPURP, as having useful navigational functionality. Lastly, keep per WP:HEY, per the significant improvements the article has realized in being converted to a table format that has been expanded with more content by SharkD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUP says that duplication is, in itself, not cause for deletion. NOTDUP is not a deletion argument so "Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP" is also not a deletion argument. Also no one said that duplication is the problem but that the category performs the function well while the list is indiscriminate and has scope issues. And the relative benefit of the new table columns in this context is arguable. czar 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for being indiscriminate, I thought lists like these are supposed to be limited to non-redlinks, but that may not be the case. Regardless, it's no more indiscriminate (right now) than the category. SharkD Talk 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is deleted, then that's the way it goes. NOTDUP has significant precedent in AfD discussions, is often cited as a valid reason for list articles to be retained, and has occurred for a great deal of time (e.g. see this search). Note that the page is useful as a navigational aid. For example, it received 2,816 page views in December 2015, whereas Category:Video game websites received 593 page views in December 2015. As such, the notion that the category is superior for Wikipedia's readers is not qualified by the numbers. Many readers don't use categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SharkD, the category is less indiscriminate because it categorizes websites that are only loosely related to video games in subcategories. It is rather silly to put Category:Video game music websites, Category:Video game news websites‎, and Category:Video game Internet forums‎ on the exact same level. This is why I suggested articles with a smaller scope: a List of video game fansites might make a fine article. ~Mable (chat) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the table can be sorted. I suppose separate tables could be created for each website type as well. SharkD Talk 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Video game websites are really common and adds a new type of cruft. The category works fine. There are plenty of video game websites. Too many to count, and none of them would need to be notable to make the list. Plus it would have the flaws of never being complete due to defunct sites and new ones coming up. If focused more I might agree to it. But it just looks like it's trying to do what category already does. Lucia Black (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much to maintain, does not offer anything over categories.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main problem with lists is that most of them take topics better covered by categories and provide no real reason of why they exist, thus being indiscriminate. That's the case with this list. --TL22 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The list would be much less indiscriminate, and also better organized, with the simple addition of sections to organize the content by type of site. However, it appears that this ~~will likely~~ may be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list provides context that categories cannot. The article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination. - hahnchen 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe there is additional info we can add to the article? I thought of maybe adding an "Awards" column, but felt that it would get too cluttered. Also, the Webby is the only award I'm familiar with. SharkD Talk 23:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think that this is a reasonable list as long as 1) each entry is a stand alone blue link and clearly established (as to avoid stub articles created an hour ago to promote a site) and 2) we have a bit finer division between websites of print magazines, online sites, aggregateors, etc. and we stick to those divisions so that we are specifically talking about gaming press or potentially larger organizations (like ESA, and maybe MLG if they stay separate from Activision) and absolutely not fan sites (even if notable) or specific game/series sites. I do see the concerns this can be flooded with any VG website but I think rules can be put into place to avoid indiscrimination. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, if there is no clearly defnined criteria you improve it; not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Foreach n everyday (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Masem's comment really tells me that the only purpose for this is just a glorified category list. Per WP:STANDALONE. Lucia Black (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious - Masem's "keep" comment above influenced my stance towards "keep" myself. How exactly did what he said influence a "strong delete" stance for you? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masem's criteria in a nutshell is if the individual items in the list are notable. Which serves the same as category. If its there just to navigate through articles, then its best not to even have it. Lucia Black (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What this list has potential for that cannot be done with a category while keeping to discriminate nature is to explain things like type of size, ownership, perhaps age, Alexa rating, defunct sites, etc. Lists and categories can co-exist, this is a prime example. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is no big benefit if the criteria is that they are all notable. Lucia Black (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Masem's proposing more criteria than just being notable though. Also, WP:NOTDUP says that we're not really supposed to look at it like that though... Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia you should strike one of your two votes. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm saying that it should be more than just GNG-passing notability for the site to show that it is established, some history and understanding of how it fits into the VG industry. Further, it should a site that is not specific for any game or developer, but instead about the broad coverage of VG, so news sites, websites of print publications, key blog sites that we have as RS (eg like Destructoid or even Old Man Murray), key organizations, key conferences, key awards organizations, aggregators, etc. I feel this sufficiently makes inclusion discrete. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add, taking from TL22's "delete" above, if we separate these by web site type, we can have a useful lead to explain that VG coverage is dominated by Internet-based sites, and explain the relative importance of each type of site, providing necessary context that categories can't do. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Masem's suggestion, I really like. It creates exactly the kind of context I would like to see from such a list. ~Mable (chat) 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as it stick's to Masem's/the standard criteria where only websites that have their own article are listed. I think "notable video game websites with their own article" is enough to steer clear of WP:INDISCRIMINATE itself, but I'm fine with stricter standards too if consensus leads us that way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NorthAmerica, Masem and Sergecross. Especially in light of the efforts to expand the article into a table with details, rather than a straight up list of articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The topic also meets WP:LISTN, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, having been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6] My keep !vote above stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Playing to Learn: Video Games in the Classroom. pp. 229–230.
^ From Gamer to Game Designer. pp. 278–279.
^ "Development and validation of an instrument to evaluate the content effectiveness of video games: a pilot study". "Most video game websites and magazines offer their own classifications (eg www.gamespot.com, www.gamespy.com and www.gamasutra.com). ..." (subscription required)
^ "Introduction to video games, their publishers, and social responsibility concerning video game addiction". p. 6.
^ "YouTube and Twitch square off at E3 with video game websites". Los Angeles Times.
^ "YouTube takes on Twitch with launch of gaming channel". Los Angeles Times.

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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Car Driving[edit]

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

There's a Rock Paper Shotgun article and a Cinemablend article, but I can't find any more coverage of this game. Sam Walton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article has not even anything minimally to suggest better notability. Notifying tagger AdrianGamer. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Gry-Online is reliable, has a review. But that was the only additional source I could find. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2016 (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. Mkdw ^talk 01:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glaico França[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet the GNG because of a lack of significant coverage and he doesn't yet meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Looks like there's a good chance he will become notable so I think the article should be saved in user space until he achieves notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2016 (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. Sandstein 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Souls Mudlib[edit]

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

nn piece of software. Sits tagged/neglected since 2011 - üser:Altenmann >t 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Reese (computer programmer) or delete. The programmer doesn't seem all that incredibly notable, but it's a perfectly legitimate redirection target. Some of these less-notable MUD-related articles could probably be merged into appropriate places. I don't see significant coverage of Dead Souls, and I'm not sure that there's going to be coverage of other mudlibs, either. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search comes up empty, and all the Google Books hits look like false positives to me. After getting that many irrelevant hits, I did give up a little earlier than I usually do, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The programmer himself seems of questionable notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps if the programmer is questionably notable himself. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus following article improvement still heavily leans towards deletion. Mkdw ^talk 01:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahboub Baccouch[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:PROF JMHamo (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: appears to be autobiography of person who fails WP:PROF. PamD 09:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that article has been entirely rewritten and sourced by an independent editor; appears to be probably notable. PamD 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it's not unusual to find nothing for academics on news or newspapers, his low hit count on Books, and his very low citation count on Scholar, make me agree that he currently fails WP:PROF. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I updated and sourced the article [6]. I think it now meets WP:PROF criteria 1. Per specific criteria notes the subject's work is highly cited in the field of "applied numerical mathematics" as measured by Scopus citation index. I referenced it in the article, archived here. (side note: I do not know the subject and I am not associated with his institutions.) Bammesk (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC).... Also, the article is a stub, it has potential.[reply]
Comment - Hoping that this will be relisted to give folks with more knowledge of academic citations a chance to weigh in. Honestly, after the excellent work done by Bammesk I am now a lot less sure of deletion than when I researched for my !vote. However, I don't have the technical chops to analyze the Scopus reference. If others come by who can give credible guidance on that, please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bammesk, I think you misread. His work is not among the most cited in the field of numerical mathematics. The reference is rather that a particular paper of his is among the most highly cited among those published in one particular journal. Elsevier's journal Applied numerical mathematics. The actual citation for that article in Google scholar is 25, which even for mathematics with low citations, is not that great. His most cited overall is Adjerid S, Baccouch M. The discontinuous Galerkin method for two-dimensional hyperbolic problems. Part I: Superconvergence error analysis. Journal of Scientific Computing. 2007 Oct 1;33(1):75-113, with 32 citations, which is not much better. (Proof that it's just this journal is by noticing there is no journal name given for any of the articles on the Elsevier page cited, and what it gives at the left is the journal information for this particular journal. And the explanation of the difference is that this journal is not among the most cited numerical mathematics journals [7]) DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for fixing my misread, the google numbers make more sense now. The Scopus count isn't high but it is decent (top 5% of 500 papers in that journal in 5 years). I yield to consensus which will likely be delete. I want to keep my vote though. This is my first AfD and first academia BLP. My 2 cents so far: WP:PROF has a high bar, it requires notability derived from excellence, in a field where excellence is a prerequisite and pursuit of notability is traditionally discouraged. Bammesk (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this certainly looks better but simply nothing to suggest fully satisfying professors notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What would wikipedia be if we all wrote articles about ourselves? MiracleMat (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of whether it's an autobiography, he doesn't have the high citations to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (e.g. top Google scholar citation count is 32, whereas some other papers with "Galerkin method" in the title have thousands of citations, and being listed as one on a long list of "most cited" articles from an individual journal says little about notability) and there is no evidence of meeting any other WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein's search on citations. It's not badly written and would be willing to userfy until the subject becomes a full prof. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (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) sst✈ 02:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libbi Bosworth[edit]

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

Tagged as possibly non-notable since December 2009. Article has two references: one a dead link, the other a very brief synopsis on a wiki type site. My own searches turned up a handful of trivial mentions in local newspapers, but I don't think they're enough to make her notable or to help create a substantial article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I think this is a pretty borderline case, as the coverage provided below isn't all substantial or even national in scope (most of the citations are from her own city). But the combined effect of the articles means Bosworth can meet the GNG, and I'd rather err on the side of keeping an article. Thanks to duffbeerforme and Northamerica1000 for their work. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. I had built these articles years ago in good faith, for performers who appeared on the sourced list of performers who were spotlighted on the nationally broadcast PBS television program Austin City Limits. I particularly included that notability of that performance in the article. My creation of the article was based on the notability standards at the time, which clearly said as I recall that a 30 minute television broadcast was one of the acceptable guidelines. The obseseeion by some people with deleting my articles that I had built based on the rules is a main reason why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore, for almost a decade now. But for what it's worth, I see the current guideline says, 12: Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Criteria for musicians and ensembles. There is also a Wikipedia article for the comprehensive list of Austin City Limits perfomers, and deleting this will only serve to make that list nonfunctional. Steven Russell (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you've had articles deleted. I don't think I've ever nominated any article you've created for deletion before. Personally I don't think a 30 minute TV broadcast on PBS qualifies under that criteria. Even if it did, notice that WP:NMUSIC says it "may" be notable. I think the main issue is that there are no sources to which we can verify the information that is currently in the article. Remember also that because she is alive the sources on the page are subject to even greater scrutiny than otherwise WP:BLP. Can you cite some reliable sources that discuss her in depth? I'm always willing to withdraw a nomination if sources are uncovered, but I didn't find anything myself so far. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The 30 minute broadcast criteria was specific as the precise reason that I built these. Otherwise I would not have wasted my time. Other people have contributed as well. It's not my fault that somebody changed the guidelines to make it more vague so that people could come along and delete a lot of hard work just because they want to interpret the now vague guideline in a most restrictive manner. These are not garbage articles for deletion. Nitpicking the criteria to justify deletion is absurd. Here is the full list of appearances by artists that will become nonfunctional with this random deletion practice, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austin_City_Limits_performers. Unfortunately the Internet Archive is fairly inept about archiving these things, maybe because PBS has opted out, I don't know. But it did exist. If the standard for Wikipedia is now that if it is not currently on the Internet anymore and so then it does not count, then Wikipedia is inane. Steven Russell (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The Austin Chronicle, Back Home in Texas Libbi Bosworth Returns With "Libbiville" By Raoul Hernandez, Fri., Oct. 19, 2001 http://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2001-10-19/83356/ just proves that sources are not so easily googled on the Internet, especially for older data like this. This is a fairly extensive biography. One relevant quote, "Matt Eskey, who financed Outskirts of You on his credit cards as proprietor of Freedom Records, a now-dormant local indie that had the infinite good taste to release debuts from the likes of Bosworth, ... estimates that sales of both Bosworth releases are among the top sellers on TexasMusicRoundup.com." I also found her album Libbiville charting in the low 30s under Americana on an extensive national list from KEXT based in Seattle, so it's not just Austin. Steven Russell (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. CMJ New Music Monthly Nov-Dec 2001 review of Libbiville. https://books.google.com/books?id=OCoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=libbiville&source=bl&ots=EzeaOBQJNh&sig=mdPA4PRmzwBMg5EkxwE4W631Eus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEodOfz-PJAhUP42MKHcU0A-E4FBDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=libbiville&f=false Steven Russell (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep it.~~ Article in the Niagra Falls Reporter, out of New York, for crying out loud. A major print newspaper from thousands of miles away, with an early online presence that happened to have an article survive the ridiculous transitory nature of the Internet. COUNTRY CHANTEUSE ON TRACK FOR STARDOM By Buck Quigley http://niagarafallsreporter.com/music2.html It's a review of Libbiville, and some more bio details. "Bosworth is cut from the same rugged cloth as Loretta Lynn and the late Tammy Wynette." Steven Russell (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best as there's been enough time for a better article to have been made and none of the listed coverage suggests even a minimally better notable article for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: There is no deadline for articles to be improved. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles; see WP:NRVE. The sources I present below refute your notions about the subject's notability quite thoroughly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep it. Just a quick Google search turns up a number of hits. Here is one prominent article, http://www.haffly.com/delbert-mcclinton-kevin-welch-marcia-ball-pitch-in-to-help-destitute-singer/ Delbert McClinton, Kevin Welch, Marcia Ball - Those are some HUGE country music names. Here is a quote that explains her importance: "Singer/Songwriter/Writer Libbi Bosworth was once a fixture on Austin’s legendary music scene. She has performed on Austin City Limits with Dale Watson and Don Walser. Her songs have been recorded by Kelly Willis, Sunny Sweeney, Walter Hyatt, The Hollisters and Toni Price. A song co-written with Walter Hyatt appeared in an episode of the popular TV series “Friday Night Lights.” " Here is more about her, http://www.lonestarmusic.com/LibbiBosworth "On Libbi's independent record, Libbiville, she duets with the Pavarotti of the Plains himself, Don Walser, and, not to play gender faves, the sultry Miss Toni Price." Steven Russell (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Washington Post reviewed Libbiville - McClain, Buzz (15 August 2001), "In The Thick Of It", The Washington Post

Austin American-Statesman had a review of Outskirts Of You - Corcoran, Michael (12 September 1996), "In The Thick Of It", Austin American-Statesman

Online coverage includes [8] [9] [10] [11] (some take from above).

[12] This book looks like it could be useful. "It's hard to believe Libbi Bosworth went through phases as a punk rocker and a jazz student at the Berklee School of Music. From the genuine spirit of her debut album, Outskirts of You, it sounds like she was born to sing and write country ..."

[13] This one appears to have a cd review.

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking extra !votes by Steven Russell. You can comment as much as you want, but you are only allowed 1 !vote. Natg 19 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The national TV performance plus the sources discovered by Steven Russell and Duffbeerforme are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Washington Post (subscription required)
^ "Back Home in Texas". Austin Chronicle. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Review: Libbi Bosworth - Music". Austin Chronicle. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Sing Me Back Home". Austin Chronicle.
^ "Niagara Falls Reporter".
^ "Beaver County Times".
^ "The Galveston Daily News". p. 22.
^ "MusicHound Country: The Essential Album Guide". It's hard to believe Libbi Bosworth went through phases as a punk rocker and a jazz student at the Berklee School of Music. From the genuine spirit of her debut album, Outskirts of You, it sounds like she was born to sing and write country ... (subscription required)
^ "Libbi Bosworth". Austin Chronicle.
^ CMJ New Music Monthly
^ "Farm Report Wabi-Sabi". (1 paragraph)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by duffbeerforme (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The articles in The Washington Post, CMJ New Music Monthly, and The Austin Chronicle provide substantial coverage of the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Libbi Bosworth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found by above editors. Appears to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added additional coverage to the article. Others above have found more. It looks like there's enough material for an article on one or both of her albums as well.Timtempleton (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Woodruff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nomination was withdrawn due to a lack of interest of other users; an unregistered user has expressed interest in pursuing the deletion further. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[original nomination reason, withdrawn:] This white hat hacker has had a little bit of local news coverage, and there is a possibility that he may get more in the future, but otherwise it's a bit too soon for an article, and I'm not sure where I'd redirect to. It doesn't help that IPs are falling over themselves to remove content without citing actual policies, so an AfD sounds like the best answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of references on this article link to throw away statements, with no backing or proof of the claims indicated. With claims such as these (especially regarding the November 2015 Paris attacks) there is no validation, so they should be rejected as an assertion of fact. There is little/no evidence of the individuals actual abilities as a hacker, at best the individual could be referred to as a conference entertainer or a basic confidence trickster/con artist. If this is the case, the individual is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedic entry. Finally, It appears that this article has been created with the sole purpose of promoting the individual and their business, evidenced by the fact that the URL goes to a company webpage, and not a page relating to the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.95.108 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level hacker without adequate sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator, all references are low quality linking to things that the individual states they have done, with no evidence that they have actually done it, nothing referenced stands up to much scrutiny. Also, Im not sure an Events section in a biography is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.67.39 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2016‎
Delete I have to agree with the nominator, he's a bit of a helmet and this page only exists to make his business look legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.115.26 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 January 2016‎

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. Sandstein 12:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Madikians[edit]

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

trivia awards, and the refs are either local or promotional. Local refs of this sort for local chefs are not reliable--they are oftern promotional and always indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best my searches found were only a few several passing mentions at Books, News and browsers. Notifying two of the most active AfD users I know Onel5969 and Northamerica1000 who also part of WikiProject Food and drink. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject" required by basic criteria for personal notability. As noted by the nom, references cited (and those I've looked for independently) are mainly blogs, passing mentions and promotional publications. I did find one secondary source, in the form of a NY Times News Service article published in 1998 in the Boca Raton News which mentions him, in passing, as an example of the hard work involved in developing as a young graduate of The Culinary Institute of America. But that's all. No significant, reliable, secondary sources for his work in the upstate NY restaurant can be found. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article demonstrate sufficient coverage for WP:GNG, e.g. Hudson Valley Magazine. Outside of the article, I found WAMC, Edible Hudson Valley, Saveur Magazine, New York Times, and Poughkeepsie Journal. Contrary to the claim above, the Times article is more than just a passing mention, dedicating three paragraphs to Madikians. Pburka (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the sweeping claim that local coverage of a chef is always poor, made by the article nom, strikes me as a false assertion and troubling as well. I don't think we can or should assume all local coverage is unreliable when it comes to chefs and we should evaluate all sources on a case by case basis. To do so otherwise is poor researching and also smacks of bias against local work as being less important/reliable, which it is not. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 05:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The local articles are reasonably well written, and the awards won imply notability. While not major, I believe that this chef meets the spirit of the WP:GNG. Lithorien (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside of the local media coverage, which I don't feel rises to the level of notability, nothing much. The sources provided above include two interviews, which are primary sources and as such don't go to notability, more local coverage, and a brief mention in the New York Times in an article that he's not the subject of. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kloosterzande. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Swaen (malt house)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. JMHamo (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as well as I hadn't actually thought of it but considering its history and age, it may be locally notable.~~Delete for now~~ at best as this seems interesting but I'm not entirely convinced from the current coverage. Notifying the only still active AfC reviewer Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Kloosterzande, which presently does not mention the malt house. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, it is an historic establishment in the town, some sources exist (e.g. [14]), and a merge would enhance and improve the merge target article à la WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kloosterzande - I didn't think it was notable enough during the AfC process, and nothing has improved. Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article, but its history could make a contribution to the target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalocity[edit]

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

There is no information in the article that shows the notability of the company as per Wikipedia guidelines WP:CORP.There is not much in the body of the article that is encyclopedic in nature other than promotional stuff about services of an ordinary company would offer from day to day.The references are mainly interviews of people affiliated with the organization which would not be a neutral of view, additionally, they are majorly press releases which fail WP:RS Aha... (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Aha... (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 10:10, 31 December 2015 (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/2015 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely as none of this suggests solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom after I have reviewed the references which barely touch on the subject independently. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Found no independent reliable sources and of the sources on the article most are dead links. The WP article doesn't satisfy all Wikipedia policies or at least meeting the threshold of WP:GNG Kansiime (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Clearly meets WP:A7 criteria. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Pechkurov (Radio)[edit]

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

This individual does not appear to be notable - there are no reliable sources either in the article or elsewhere that I could find Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and blog is insignificant with no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~A7 - Article has not established why this person is significant. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed to Delete - credible significance is established in the article, so it is not eligible for A7.

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. No significant secondary coverage exists for this person whatsoever. The article claims that he has won awards, but this requires verifiable evidence (which there seems to be absolutely none). Hence, this person also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as clearly a non notable bloke. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. All sources fail WP:RS and are probably user-generated.--3 of ♦ _{I go}^first 17:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (nominator withdrew) St Anselm (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

César Castellanos (pastor)[edit]

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

~~No indication of notability; single source is a passing reference in a source of dubious quality. —swpb^T 14:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator; nomination has generated improvements that appear to establish N. More sources still needed though. —swpb^T 14:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Look at the Spanish version. Even aside from his role as a pastor, Castellanos passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Chamber of Representatives of Colombia. But he's notable as a pastor as well. See this article in Christianity Today[15] another source is here[16]. There are, of course, going to be many sources in Spanish.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG, see for example http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/del-pulpito-politica-articulo-466733 --Soman (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep because of WP:POLITICIAN. Any member of a national chamber of parliament is inherently notable; I'm a little surprised at this nomination, to be honest. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - swpb, would you consider withdrawing the nomination? St Anselm (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2016 (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. Katie^talk 00:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyburst Illuminations[edit]

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

Company claiming (based on entry in local paper) to be "the largest organiser of firework displays in the United Kingdom". One other local paper story & the rest of sources are deadlinks or fail verification. I can find multiple inclusions in business directories but nothing supporting the notability of the company. — Rod ^talk 20:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better and the listed coverage is simply the expected local coverage, nothing outstandingly better. Notifying past taggers Trevj (although it seems he's not considerably active) and Shirt58. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- In a small field, it is perhaps not difficult to be the biggest. The article on Reaction Fireworks a compeer, also has a notability tag on it. I remain undecided. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete: The company additionally won the Bristol Post's Family Business of the Year 2012, had this this mention in a national paper, provided fireworks for 2011 and 1999 [Tall Ships' Races], and had this [17] report in Fireworks Mag. It's all rather thin. National fireworks competition participation is NN, but if they'd won, that'd provide some weight... ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 06:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Hollandse Frietjes – non-professional cycling[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:147.172.38.84 with a talk page comment that sources present are sufficient for notability. I just don't see how those sources are sufficient; I only recognize Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, but I cannot even find that article online. Can any German speaker comment on the references? Is there anything here that meets the in-depth, reliable coverage requirement? I already asked at WT:GERMANY but nobody answered :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best until a better noticeably notable article is made as there's nothing currently to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Tour Magazin and FAZ are notably, only its online archives are limited. The Team Hollandse Frietjes had its golden period in the mid 2000. I.e. it played a supporting role in the ZDF documentary "Rahmen, Ritzel, rasierte Beine", shot and telecasted 2004 in ZDF, 3sat and public tv networks. A regional radio station is its sponsor. In 2006 und 2007, 1LIVE reportet regurlarly about the team due to the ICFF. User: Amp-Experte 22:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NCYC, specifically point 3. XyZAn (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on what I can tell, there's not substantial coverage of the topic. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (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, noting that this was CSD A7 material. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Ikbal[edit]

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

Not notable, also seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page should be a BLP PROD. Its a new article with zero references. Meatsgains (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as as mentioned which with I concur, nothing else to suggest an improvable article here. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 4 January 2016 (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 and redirect to Facebuster. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faceplant[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, no references to assert notability. All sections of the article are empty. It is also a child band, all 4 members are aged 12-14. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note- there appears to be multiple "rock bands" named Faceplant from across the United States, and they are all unremarkable. This article lies about being labeled with Universal Music Group and Atlantic Records as well. CatcherStorm ^talk 12:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Facebuster, as is was before this entry was changed a few days ago. No evidence of notability offered or to be found. According to their webpage, band members are variously in 8th through 12th grade. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needed as this certainly seems non-notable currently and certainly redirect as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 2 January 2016 (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. Sandstein 12:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kleinberg[edit]

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

Despite its being around for nearly ten years, no-one has managed to add any significant evidence of notability to this article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Power Rangers Time Force as he's simply not solidly notable regardless. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Plenty of sources thus meets GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mondomarine[edit]

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

Fails GNG CatcherStorm ^talk 12:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mondomarine si aggiudica i Cantieri di Pisa: salvi i 33 dipendenti". La Nazione.
^ "Nautica, Mondomarine Savona si aggiudica i cantieri di Pisa". IVG.
^ di Danilo Renzullo (20 April 2015). "Mondomarine punta i Cantieri di Pisa". il Tirreno.
^ "Nautica, Mondomarine in "corsa" per acquisire i cantieri di Pisa". IVG.
^ "Mondomarine Savona assorbe i 32 lavoratori dei Cantieri di Pisa". IVG.
^ "I Cantieri di Pisa sono salvi: Mondomarine annuncia l’acquisto". il Tirreno. 1 May 2015.
^ "Liguria Nautica News". Liguria Nautica News.

Keep per North America's sound analysis and sources. Some additional source examples: [18], [19], [20]. I see over 1,400 news in Italian Google News archives [21]. Cavarrone 17:32, 2 January 2016 (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. I appreciate the strength of feeling on both sides but for better or for worse this does not seem unambiguously to meet our community's criteria for deletion. Concerns with article quality can be addressed in the usual ways. I was swayed especially by SlimVirgin's argument about the relatively high number of sources which use the term. John (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has already been deleted twice, but was recreated without any evidence of an undeletion discussion.

The term does not have any significant usage outside of the book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, which has its own article. This article is a giant WP:COATRACK based on synthesis of sources that do not mention the term, and serves as a POV fork of the main article, advocating for the use of the term (and also for the truth of the term).

The thing is, this article is one of the most actively, intentionally misleading articles on Wikipedia as to the prominence of the term, an effective WP:HOAX that adds swathes of material not related to carnism into it in order to give the illusion of notability separate from the book's. Not every source is viewable, but let's consider every single source that is:

Source 1 [22] A brief definition that makes it clear the term is used to define - and gives as an explicit synonym: "Melanie Joy’s view on food ethics". This doesn't justify an independent article on "carnism". (the longer, pre-publication version goes into more detail, but is still explicitly a summary of Joy's work.)
Source 2: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=92Ct9iD1QTYC&pg=PA138&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false] A one paragraph mention beginning Sociologist Melanie Joy (2009) coined the term carnism..." A search of the book shows this is the only use of the term in the entire book (ignoring the title of Joy's book in the references, and a link to that page in the index)
Source 3: [23] While almost certainly not notable (published in a low-tier journal; on a very specific subject (right-wing authoritarianism and meat-eating), this paper does, at least use the term.
Source 4: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TzDZYc8SGigC&pg=PA353&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=carnism&f=false Term is used in the book five times, all within a couple pages as part of a summary of Joy's ideas. Does not show independence.
Source 5:Why We Love Dogs... - This is the source of the term, as stated above.
Source 6: Interview with Melanie Joy about "Why we Love Dogs..." - The author of the book using the term in an interview on the book shows nothing.
Source 7: [24] Content entirely based off of a press release advertising Why we Love Dogs...
Source 8: Why we Love Dogs... again.
Source 9a: Partially inaccessible. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666315001518 "Carnism" does not appear in the abstract; may or may not in article
Source 9b: [25] The term "carnism" does not appear in the article.
Source 10: [26] Term only appears in the title of Joy's book.
Source 11: [27] Term only appears in title of Joy's book.
Source 12: [28] Term only appears in title of Joy's book.
Source 13: [29] Term does not appear at all.
Source 14: [30] Term does not appear at all.
Source 15: Partially inaccessible [31] Term does not appear in abstract.
Source 16: [32] Term does not appear at all.
Source 17: Partially inaccessible [33] Term does not appear in abstract.
Source 18: [34] Term does not appear at all.
Source 19: Inaccessible, but predates term.
Source 20: [35] Term does not appear
Source 21: [36] Term does not appear.
Source 22: [37] Term does not appear.
Source 23: Inaccessible
Source 24: [38] Term still does not appear (Same as source 20)
Source 25: Partially inaccessible [39] Term does not appear in abstract
Source 26: [40] Predates term
Source 27: Partially inaccessible [41] Predates term
Source 28: Inaccessible
Source 29: It's Plutarch, and thus predates the term by millenia. Term does not appear.
Source 30: [42] Term does not appear
Source 31: [43] Term does not appear
Source 32: [44] Term does not appear
Source 33: Inaccessible.
Source 34: Inaccessible, but predates term.
Source 35: [45] Article is in French. French cognates appear, but I don't really see that helping much in a neologism article on the English term.
Source 36: Inaccessible, but all three sources predate term.
Source 37: [46] Article by Melanie Joy, who, again, created the term.
Source 38: [47] Summary of Melanie Joy's work (does claim that the term will in future catch on, though)
Source 39: [48] Term used in discussion of Melanie Joy and her book.
Source 40: [49] Speech by Melanie Joy.
Source 41: [50] Summary of Joy's work.
Source 42: [51] Summary of Joy's work.
Source 43: Why We Love Dogs... again.
Source 44: [52] Does not use term.
Source 45: [53] Does not use term.
Source 46: Why We Love Dogs... again.
Source 47: [54] Does not use term
Source 48: Inaccessible (Same as Source 23)
Source 49: Inaccessible,
Source 50: Why We Love Dogs... again.
Source 51: [55] Term does not appear
Source 52: Partially inaccessible [56] Term not in abstract.
Source 53: [57] Tern does not appear.
Source 54: [58] Term appears only in title of Joy's book.
Source 55: Inaccessible
Source 56: Inaccessible

To summarise, of the 59 sources (there's a 9a and 9b, and Reference 36 is three sources):

10 are by Melanie Joy, the creator of the term (including the press release about the book)
5 have summaries of Joy's work, and mention the term in that context.
30 do not use the term (with the possible exception of including the title of Joy's book). This count includes those sources that predate the term that I couldn't check. (the three sources in Ref 36 are counted individually in this total)
5 are only partially accessible, but do not use the term in the text available (usually an abstract) and do not predate the term.
7 are inaccessible (and do not predate the term)
1 is in French, but includes some French cognates
1 uses the term, but is of no notability.

In short, this article is a massive coatrack. At best, including the articles summarising Joy's work, and the one in French, only 7 sources that aren't by Joy herself even mention the term. If we're not generous... maybe four, as you might be able to count a couple of the lengthier summaries of Joy's work. From what I can tell, however, none provide any material not better placed in the article Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. It simply hasn't grown beyond the book's content (attempts at a coatrack of original research aside).

Now, no-one is saying Joy's ideas shouldn't be on Wikipedia: Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows should continue to exist. But we can't have a spinoff article that exists solely to abuse sources in order to give the appearance of a term being more prominent than it is. Indeed, by WP:COATRACKing in other information, this article does that information a disservice. For example, the section "Meat paradox" is ironically better evidence of the term "meat parodox" being a notable term than this entire article is for Carnism being a notable term, as it's pulling in sources that do use the term "meat paradox" but not carnism.

With an article on a neologism, we first need evidence the term is in reasonably widespread use. This article, instead, just throws in anything that discusses the ethical issues around meat eating to support the new term. That's original research and synthesis, and neither of those belong on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC) ))[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete per nominator. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equity and gender feminism is a possible precedent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and can we include some kind of moratorium on this damn thing being recreated yet again in a week? Capeo (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- looks and feels like a good article to me. The rationale proposed by Adam Cuerden above looks copious and looks well-researched, but i took just a single randomly-selected part of it to look it, the comment on source 9b in the article, which was stated as Source 9b: [59] The term "carnism" does not appear in the article. I looked at the text in the article, and the source, and i find that there is nothing negative about the fact that the source doesn't contain the term carnism for it certainly does support the claim in the article, and there is no claim based on the term carnism sourced to that source. Therefore, based on a random sampling of one of this editor's copious objections, i would urge caution in accepting that large screed as evidence of the damnability of this article. I think it's very well-written and describes a notable concept with a good NPOV tone. SageRad (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text may support the claim in the article, but does not support' the claim being part of carnism. If this were one or two cites, it'd be harmless, but there are whole sections of the article with absolutely no cites that can be linked to carnism in any way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the text of that source didn't support the claim being part of carnism but that was not the requirement of that source from the claim and that does not look like an argument to delete the article, to me. So i sampled one of your points and found it lacking in merit. I don't have time to look at all of them, it's clear to me that carnism is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia, and that the article is well-written and the notability is sourced well enough to merit inclusion. SageRad (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support your argument, given that only seven, at the most generous, mention carnism while being even the slightest bit independent of Joy - and most of those are just summarising her work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article could do with a bit of a trim back but I am not convinced by the deletion rationale, which is basically a IDINTLIKEIT propped up by a wall of text and some canvassing. It's possible that the article could benefit from a merge but I believe that discussion should happen outside of an AFD context. Artw (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propped up by evidence that this non-notable term was coined by a barely notable activist. That's what that wall of text shows if you bothered to read it. Capeo (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the sake of expedience I am mostly copying a response I wrote to the nominator and others here. The below is nowhere near an exhaustive list of sources.

This German academic book by Sandra Mahlke uses the term at least 90 times, including in the title, and is clearly not about Joy's book.
This German academic book uses the term nine times, again going beyond Joy's work.
I have not been able to get a copy of Le végétarisme et ses ennemis, but FourViolas assures me that it uses the term throughout and that "there's actually a lot of the more useful second kind of information: carnist philosophy in Ancient Greece, Abrahamic religions, and modern society, all in lots of detail and presented in very fair-sounding ways."
This book uses the term at least 41 times.
This academic book by Frye contains an analysis that is clearly independent what Joy wrote.
This essay collection uses the term at least 11 times.

...Mostly in the title of Joy's book. I'm not going to review all of these. Give me three citations you think - unlike this spot check - won't fall down at the slightest glance, and I'll check those. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, technically six out of eleven times is "mostly". I think you're ignoring the big picture. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This academic book chapter is about carnism and independent of Joy.
This new paper uses the term 20 times and goes beyond Joy's book.
[www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=58725^{[predatory publisher]} This] new paper is about "The presence of carnism on Portuguese television."
This academic book uses the term at least 14 times, and again has not much to do with Joy's book.
This paper by Gutjahr uses the term and is not about Joy's book.
This paper "frames contrasts between vegetarianism and carnism through the phenomena of the presence of an absence and the absent referent, respectively" and whatever that means, I think it's nothing Joy wrote about.
This paper by Greenebaum uses the term and goes beyond Joy's work.
This definitely provocative psychological study tells us that "Animal exploitation and meat consumption are arguably part of the dominant ideological system ‘carnism’, prescribing norms and beliefs about animal treatment" and goes on to discuss this at length. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being quite generous with the term academic there. Google scholar brings up nothing but Joy or papers that reference Joy, including many of the papers above. All primary sources. All low impact or no impact journals and all the cites are minimal, if any, and circular in that they cite each other. In other words, I see no notability here. Anything here that isn't already in the Joy article should be tossed in there really. I don't see nearly enough notability for a stand-alone article. Capeo (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they cite Joy does not make them primary. Of course they cite her - they have to note that she coined the term and originated the concept. Also, these sources are all very recent, and are in humanities fields that do not publish huge numbers of papers. This may account for why some of them have not got many citations. I also could have included lots of other sources, including other papers and newspaper articles, but I never cease to be amazed by this Wikipedia culture that regards "low impact" peer-reviewed journals and academic presses as less valuable than The New York Times. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's thousands of papers written every year and, over the last couple decades, a huge uptick in non-impact journals. It seems like everyone and their brother has a journal now and their "peer-review" is suspect at best. We don't write articles for every new hypothesis or theory represented in a journal because simple publication does not equate to notability or overarching acceptance in academic circles. We'd have thousands of articles on every fly by night fringe concept there is. Actually we do but that's not argument for more. I also don't know that anyone would argue that we value the NYT over academic sources but significant coverage in the press can be an argument for inclusion for even the fringiest of theories. I don't think notability here is established on either the academic nor mainstream fronts. Capeo (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge or remove material as necessary to address SYNTH. Even the most uncontroversial of Sammy1339's sources above would require unacceptable mental acrobatics to be included in Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows.

There's much less OR in Carnism than people unfamiliar with the sources might think; for example, an extended form of the Plutarch quote is included verbatim in Gibert/Desaulniers' article on carnism (p. 4), and it's therefore not original research to connect it to "carnism". However, the #Meat paradox and #Ascription of limited mental capacity sections, which as nom noted are independently notable, should be moved to Draft:Psychology of eating meat, and republished once that article meets policy requirements.

What would remain would be a collection of sociological works like Freeman 2012, Gutjahr 2013, and Braunsberger 2015 which unambiguously discuss carnism and go well beyond Joy's work. The fact that these academic sources tend to have a POV different from that of the median Wikipedian is none of our legitimate business; we're not scholars or peer reviewers, we're just editors (WP:MAINSTREAM). FourViolas (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more in-depth independent reliable sources: a book chapter subtitled "Vegan sexuality and the intimate rejection of carnism" [60] and a paper on the normalization of carnism on American television (using the term) [61]. Trivial mentions in a literary-theory paper [62] and book [63] show that the idea is used in several areas of academia independently of Joy. FourViolas (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAINSTREAM actually refutes your argument. None of the sources you cite above come anywhere close to mainstream academic sociology. So when we're deciding whether a fringe theory deserves inclusion the criteria would be notability which is sorely lacking here. Capeo (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been written about enough, in academic and non-academic outlets, that if it were "fringe" there would be someone refuting it. Per the text of WP:FRINGE a fringe theory is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." So if you want to make this claim you should show mainstream sources contradicting the main points of the article's "fringe" sources. We have had this conversation ad nauseam already on the article talk page, and zero such "mainstream" sources have showed up. What's really going on here is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

In response to 4V's assertion that the meat paradox papers don't belong, they are discussed in the entry on carnism in The Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics and we followed standard practice by directly citing the secondary sources instead of the tertiary source. They really do go to the heart of the concept, and if this article is about ideas and not words, I don't think it can be argued that they are out of place. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad understanding of fringe. 99% of the fringe ideas out there don't get refuted in academia because academics don't waste valuable time and effort to refute things that have no traction in the first place. Capeo (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you still have to have sources, which may precede the allegedly "fringe" theory, contradicting the ideas. And it is furthermore my contention that the twenty or so academic sources you choose to ignore do constitute "traction." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to have preceding sources that contradict the idea because, as I said, most academics don't bother to deal with fringe ideas. That puts us into OR territory. For instance, if any theory is bandied about that contradicts mainstream thought on a subject but hasn't garnered enough traction to warrant a response we, as editors, can't say this contradicts mainstream thought if no RS has. That would be OR. That's where notability comes in as the deciding factor. To me, as I see the sources, Carnism belongs in the Joy article and not as a standalone article. Capeo (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo, I am asking you to show us the "mainstream thought" that this supposedly contradicts, as I thought I made clear. When we had this discussion before on the talk page, similar high-and-mighty pronouncements were made about this being "against the mainstream", but all the sources we kept turning up were very consistent with what's written in the article. Some of them turned into Draft:Psychology of eating meat, which I had nothing to do with (and in fact opposed) and which is now being attacked as "fringe" for exactly the same reason: people simply don't want to hear what it says. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say anymore. We don't decide what anything contradicts. That's basic. You keep ignoring notability. If Carnism suddenly takes off as a concept and integrates itself into ethics to a huge a degree then it deserves an article. Right now it's a concept that has made no significant inroads into the conversation. Capeo (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy, that's true about some of the meat paradox papers (Bastian 2012, Bratanova 2011, Ruby and Heine 2012). My apologies. But even so, I think it would ultimately be fairer to cut those sections of Carnism to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, keeping the main text at Psychology of eating meat, where they directly belong according to many more sources. Capeo, I don't see how an idea could be on the "fringe" of food studies while having a 7-page entry in the Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. FourViolas (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The EFAE is over 1,800 pages of literally just about anything that's ever been written about any subject tangential to food ethics. It's currently asking for suggestions from anyone graduate student and above to include in its next printing including extremely new ideas. Its inclusion criteria is more lax than WP. Capeo (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided There is certainly a set of justifications for using animals for food, etc. WP should have an article on the topic or it should be a major part of whatever article we have on "Human carnivorism" or "Exploitation of animals." However a WP article can not start out "Carnism is a term coined by psychologist Melanie Joy..." I would have more sympathy for an article that started out: "Carnism is the justification of exploitation of other animals by humans." And later in the article: "The term was coined by psychologist Melanie Joy..." Borock (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A WP:NEOLOGISM entirely derived from Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism (2010). This is indeed a WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POVFORK / WP:CONTENTFORK. 99% of the citations either (1) do not mention the word "carnism" at all (in fact most – 60% – of the citations predate the public use of the word), (2) mention "carnism" only in respect to the book (in fact some come from press releases for the book). In point of fact, most of the citations have nothing to do with the subject and are instead agricultural articles, statistics, etc. used in a massive WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:POV WP:FRINGE WP:OPINION WP:ESSAY to prop up veganism. I would not object to a very selective Merge & Redirect to Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, as long as every single point is cited and every single citation is a WP:RS that visibly uses the term "carnism" and discusses the term in significant coverage. Softlavender (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Softlavender. Not enough independent coverage/usage to establish notability. Brunton (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joy's ideas are referred to by this term in numerous books. For example, Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-animal Studies. It seems better to cover the concept on a specific page rather than on pages for the author or a particular book. Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the only references to the term in that book is in a brief summary of Joy's work, the title of her book in the references, and the index. This is yet anotherr evidence that the people voting keep cannot rationally evaluate the evidence they're presenting. 15:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds kind of insulting the Andrew Davidson, like anyone who has other opinions than you is not thinking clearly. How about sticking to the content. I think that the mention is one more tick mark for notability. It's not necessary for a source to do more than to describe the existence of this concept by this name to add to the overall notability of the concept. It's also not necessary for a concept to be "true" or "real" for it to be a real concept. A concept can be a notable thing in society even if it's not an actual thing. This is the nature of human culture. I find enough discourse to mention carnism as a concept to call this one a keeper. I repeat that it's not cool behavior to call those who disagree with you stupid or irrational. You seem frustrated but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not justify a seperate entry from the book setting it out if the only references are summaries of the book. Period. There is no argument there. The argument is not whether the concept should be discussed on Wikipedia, it's whether we should have two articles on it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That book was just an example. My position is based upon the more general finding that the term is used in many books. For an example of an entry in another encyclopedia, see Gibert, Desaulniers (21 November 2014), "Carnism", Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, Springer, pp. 292–298, ISBN 978-94-007-0928-7. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWO articles. TWO. The book setting it out, that deserves an article, and the neologism foro which every reference is a summary of the book, which does not. Perhaps it wasn't clear that that was the problem, because you seriously are not providing any evidence that this deserves a second article, only that the book deserves one. Worse, the article as it stands is a WP:HOAX: throwing in at least 30 sources not about carnism in any way in order to create the illusion of a more widespread, accepted term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That encyclopedia article is named for the concept, not the book. In any case, that issue is not a reason to delete anything. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also literally defines the subject as "Melanie Joy's views on food ethics. [64]. You're using sources already analysed, and ignoring the analysis. I will grant that's one of the few decent sources, but it doesn't show notability, as, as I said in the nomination itself, for sources independent of Joy, there are "maybe four, as you might be able to count a couple of the lengthier summaries of Joy's work", but that doesn't stop the article being a massive WP:COATRACK and, as it includes content not related to carnism to bolster its notability, active WP:HOAX. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator acknowledges that the topic has decent sources. The topic is therefore notable. These sources use the word carnism to describe the topic and so this a valid title for the topic, as we see in the Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. This is all we need to establish to conclude that deletion is not appropriate. The only mystery is why the nominator can't let the matter go. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. This is a non-notable neologism. There is absolutely no evidence of any currency outside of its coiner, and all discussion is about the coiner and her book, not about the term. This has to be one of the most blindingly obvious cases of WP:NEO I have seen in recent times. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - As a WP:NEO with no notable usage outside of the book, discussion about the book, and stuff by the advocates of the book's philosophy. BMK (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Guy. This is the fourth time we have gone through this exercise and I have yet to see any evidence that somehow the world has changed as far as this neologism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom and NinjaRobotPirate's precedent. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about canvassing

When anybody evaluates this AfD, they should note carefully that there is canvassing here advocating for editors to come and vote for deletion, with the following text by the poster of that call to arms so to speak: Fringe neologism. One of the worst examples of a WP:COATRACK I've seen ever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Therefore, the numbers of votes should be taken with a grain of salt in light of this canvassing. SageRad (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. It's a normal place to discuss fringe theories. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That very comment in itself is prejudging it to be a "fringe theory" which is a term that has come to be used in a McCarthyist way on Wikipedia, and posting it there has a clear intent to present it to a certain subset of editors who would be ideologically predisposed to a certain outlook on the article (not in terms of expertise as with a medicine or engineering board but because it's an ideological group), and lastly if that weren't enough, the phrasing itself of the call to comment on the AfD was very very very very clearly biased against the article (yes, four very's worth).... SageRad (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan ethics isn't necessarily fringe, but a specific term, with no evidence of widespread use? It is fringe, by definition. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google News for the word gives 215 results. Many of those are fluffy but many are good for establishing notability. It's not a term with very widespread usage in my brief survey but it's a real term with enough notability to remain an article in my opinion. There may be some case to fold it into speciesism as a specific variant, but i think the article is a great standalone article. SageRad (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm part of an ideological group because I have FTN on my watchlist? Didn't know that. And McCarthyist? Seriously? What next? Godwin's Law? Carnism is completely non-notable. Capeo (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Adam Cuerden has crossed the line is using the FTN for canvassing here. Admittedly FTN gets abused like this a lot, sonething that is unfortunately very commonplace with that noticeboard. Artw (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about WP:NEOLOGISM

I see many in this AfD citing WP:NEOLOGISM as if that makes all neologisms unsuitable for articles. However, the guideline itself has this section at the policy shortcut WP:WORDISSUBJECT which makes it clear that some neologisms are suitable:

When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject
In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability. Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), thou, orange (word), and no worries.
In other cases, a word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself. Often the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this.

I think this is one such case where a neologism has gained a notability and the article goes into depth far beyond a dictionary definition. SageRad (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) I would like to clarify what is going on above.

(1) This is not a deletion discussion at all - it is a merge discussion, as stated by the nominator here. The nominator previously started a merge discussion, and then WP:FORUMSHOPPED. He advertized both discussions on WP:FTN.
(2) The nominator's allegation that all of the sources are summaries of the book, as opposed to discussing the concept, is disingenuous. For example, the beef industry source Drovers Cattle Network[65] was labeled by the nominator as "summary of Joy's work." It begins with
"There’s a new buzzword gaining traction among the vegetarian activist community: carnism. Actually, it’s a term that’s been around awhile, since it was first coined by psychologist Melanie Joy several years ago and garnered visibility in her 2010 book “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows.” But it’s now become a topic du jour at conference sessions and discussion groups when animal activists get together at their annual “hate-the-meat-industry” meetings.

Likewise, the Piazza paper is entirely about the concept of carnism (not the book) as explained in this CNN story. Yet it was dismissed by the nominator because ""Carnism" does not appear in the abstract; may or may not in article."

(3) In a post above, I listed 14 sources (not including the previous three) which substantively discuss the concept. All are secondary - independent of Joy. I specifically identified most of them as going beyond Joy's work. The nominator chose to criticize one which I did not make this claim about as being too closely connected to Joy's work, and use this as an excuse for ignoring the rest. All of the sources in that list are legitimate. In the words of FourViolas, who has been my most vocal adversary in the previous disputes over this topic, "it would be really artificial to shoehorn Sammy's sources into this article" (on Joy's book.)[66]. Consider for example the German book by Mahlke, which is the first in my list of 14 sources. It has "carnism" in the title, and a large part of it is devoted to the subject. It would be completely silly to try to work this into the article on Joy's book. Likewise, the entry in the Encyclopedia of Agricultural and Food Ethics is not about Joy's book, it is about carnism. This is the case with many other sources that have been bluntly dismissed by the nominator.
(4) The opponents of this article want to treat this as a fringe theory, and use this as a reason for discounting all the sources in my previous list. However, they have not been willing to provide any evidence that Joy's ideas depart significantly from mainstream scholarship. They don't. In fact, the people claiming this have either not defended their position at all, or have brought up their own citation-free fringe theories about evolutionary psychology and Anthony Bourdain's opinions. This is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
(5) The perception that this article is full of original research is based on a decision by certain editors to include material which is clearly about the same subject matter but predates the term. When I first came across this article, it was a partisan screed. My rewrite did not include sources that were not clearly connected to the subject, but I understand why other editors wanted to include these sources on the grounds that the subject of the article is the idea, not the word. Furthermore it was reasonable to place the term in the context of the previous scholarship on the subject matter, such as the works of Rozin.

I hope that people will conduct searches on the term and actually read the sources they turn up, instead of buying into the idea that this is a pseudoscience "hoax".

If anyone wants to respond, please do so outside this comment rather than breaking it up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. Kindly do not put words in my mouth, which I have not said. I could see WP:HISTMERGE issues meaning that the content was not deleted outright, but see deletion as a suitable way of dealing with an article that is basically a WP:HOAX because the content that you yourself admit was added in that doesn't reference carnism serves as the only content not directly from Joy's book. WP:HISTMERGE might mean that we should look at alternatives to deletion, but, honestly, a bad depiction of Joy's views constantly going off-topic is probably unsuitable merge topic, as I learned after fully researching this and realising how bad it was. I also think your view - that going to people who, for example, explicitly talk about their conversations with Melanie Joy as reasons not to merge - means that the wider Wikipedia community should be actively excluded from a deletion discussion, keeping it to the people who are obviously non-neutral. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the person I quoted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination does a good job of explaining the issue. The article is about a made-up-term which the author is trying to push as part of a campaign. Wikipedia should not be part of that—not until multiple independent reliable sources use the term as if it were an accepted concept not in relation to the author. The advocacy images can be put in some other article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: If you want in-depth academic analysis of the concept that doesn't even cite the person who originated it, that's obviously too much to ask. But if you want mainstream media outlets that use the word without reference to her, there are some, for example [67], [68], [69]. Please read my comment above, if you haven't already. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are A. references to "carnist", B. very weak usages (used to simply mean "meat-eater", without any additional philosophy behind it) and C. in the middle case, quoting a vegan website in the only point it mentions the word. While a cognate, I'd say "carnist" is a far more narrow term than "carnism". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To refute NEO, one needs to show that the term is used independently of its creator, and, much more importantly, that it has been discussed in enough depth to allow an article to be written. The three weak mentions above, like these [70][71][72][73]; , show the former; in-depth sources (mentioning Joy, as they should) show the latter. FourViolas (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My opinion hasn't changed since the previous AfD. Regarding NinjaRobotPirate's precedent of Equity and gender feminism (seems like as good a place as any to start), in that case the subject was a set of terms Christina Hoff Sommers used to talk about concepts we already cover under other (much more popular) names. There was no novel concept. The terms' significance was therefore limited to the context of the book. Discussion of the terms was limited almost entirely to discussion of the book. In this case there is a prominent publication which brought the term to the mainstream, but (a) there is a novel concept we don't cover elsewhere, (b) secondary source coverage of the concept via Joy is not limited to a particular work (she coined it 9 years before Why We Love Dogs...), and (c) there are many secondary sources about carnism that mention the book in addition to sources about the book which mention carnism (we need both, but both "count" -- i.e. a review of one of her works which focuses on the concept still contributes to notability). That's an important distinction. Many notable concepts are named by and/or developed by and thus associated with a particular person. What's important is that it has significance outside of her own primary sources. And in this case there are many reliable secondary sources which talk about carnism. That many of them also talk about Joy just means she wrote the best known text about it. So if anything, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows should be merged into this article, not the other way around. Last time around I collected sources at User:Rhododendrites/Carnism. It's very possible more have been discovered since then, and as a disclaimer, I did not go back through them since then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: Speciesism. Ethics of eating meat. What, exactly, doesn't fit into one or the other of those? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adam Cuerden: Speciesism is the much too broad umbrella term, so the real question, to me anyway, is about ethics of eating meat. That article runs through the various arguments/criticisms/justifications but while it covers perspectives it's not about the underlying psycho-sociological context/apparatus/paradigm. That's a smaller subject, but it's also sufficiently distinct to justify a separate article. We could also fold critical race theory, sociology of race and ethnic relations, institutional racism, and symbolic racism into racism -- and I realize as I'm typing that this analogy is so fraught as to potentially do my argument more harm than good... and yet here I am still typing... :) -- but they're sufficiently distinct and sufficiently written about to justify and sustain a stand-alone article. If we were talking about a stub, without any indication that it could sustain a stand-alone article (and/or without worrying that it could grow disproportionately long in a broader article), that would be one thing, but that doesn't look to be the case. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those terms are used by independent sources. Come back in a few years and recreate this article when it is past the neologism and retweet stage. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just finished a college course on animal ethics (the generalized topic of ethics of eating meat), and it's not the same topic. Ethics is about formal logic: "if I'm committed to believing that the fulfillment of my desires is subjectively good, am I committed to valuing animals as ends-in-themselves in the Kantian sense?" "Carnism" refers to cultural practices and social structures which have nothing to do with, and may actually be hostile to,[74] this kind of formal debate. FourViolas (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to book. NE Ent 02:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent:Based on what POLICY!? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think we should cover this, but as it's written now it pretty clearly belongs with the book. If the term starts seeing wider use (outside of a narrow part of academia) then recreation might make sense. Opposed to deletion as I think A) this may be useful later if the term does see more use and B) there may be things here to merge back into the book. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO as others have pointed out. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 06:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was recent enough that we should probably ping the other participants (I was surprised to stumble upon this AfD personally, having removed the article from my watchlist). Including every registered user who hasn't already participated here: @Fartherred, BU Rob13, EEng, DrChrissy, Viriditas, Winner 42, and Kharkiv07:@SlimVirgin, Doctorhawkes, Colapeninsula, Edwardx, Naypta, Sandstein, and MarnetteD:@Pete unseth: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally with the comment of SageRad regarding canvassing here. This is so blatant that I believe it invalidates this AfD and I urge any admin or user intending to close this AfD to bear that in mind.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a neutral notification. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the fact that somebody coined a term to propagate their belief, this article does not cover ideas that are not already included in such articles as Speciesism. Pete unseth (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect in its current form, the article is largely based on sources which either don't use the term "carnism" or which only discuss it in terms of quotations or explicit summary of Joy's work. To the extent that the article uses sources which summarise Joy's work the content should be placed in articles about Joy's work, and the remaining content is largely a WP:COATRACK of other content about the historical and cultural aspects of eating meat (and some more tangential areas such as meat production). Looking through the discussion above I suspect it might be possible to write an article about this topic which addresses these concerns, but I don't think it would look much like this one and I am conscious of the fact that this is the fourth deletion discussion about these issues. Hut 8.5 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What do our policies say? WP:N is the relevant policy. Conditions are met. Even the nominator conceded that there are AT LEAST 7 independent significant mentions. Essays like WP:COATRACK aren't policy for a reason. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:N is not the relevant policy. It is "an article notability guideline".

Delete. I support deletion or merge arguments, particulalry from Guy who said it is a blindingly obvious case of WP:NEO non-notable neologism, with absolutely no evidence of any currency outside of its coiner, and with all discussion being about the coiner and her book, not about the term.Moriori (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entry in Springer's Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics by authors other than Joy should be enough to justify this article's retention. Whether we like it or not, the term has growing traction in academic literature across a number of disciplines. For example, take a look at doi:10.4236/jss.2015.38004 and doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_201, both of which seem to be moving beyond Joy's work and engaging in emperical research on the subject. I concede, though, that the article as it stands is not ideal. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @J Milburn: That article, however, is explicitly a summary of Joy's book (it's Source 1 above), and, as such, I don't see why we shouldn't cover it under the book. If the article was salvageable, we could consider that a merge argument, as it is, that would be a good way to misrepresent the book and carnism (Ironic fact: I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concept; but this article's abuse of sources amounts to academic fraud.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are problems with the Wikipedia article- I don't deny that (though I confess to finding the whole "hoax"/"academic fraud"/"fringe" rhetoric a bit hyperbolic). My point is that Springer's encyclopedia, edited by two respected academics in the area, published an article on the subject, written by two respected writers in the area. (All four probably notable themselves; we already have an article on Élise Desaulniers.) The article may have not been written in the way it would typically be written on Wikipedia (there's an interesting discussion to be had about the differences) though I think describing it as a "summary" of Joy's book is exceedingly dismissive. My point is that something considered significant enough to be published in Springer's encyclopedia is surely significant enough to be published in ours. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and copy edit per the sources – A notable topic that has received a great deal of notable usage outside of the book, with the concept and term having received independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Braunsberger, Karin; Flamm, Richard O. (2015). "Consumer Identities: Carnism Versus Veganism". The Sustainable Global Marketplace. p. 345. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_201. ISBN 978-3-319-10872-8.
^ www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=58725^{[predatory publisher]} The Presence of Carnism on Portuguese Television
^ Helena Pedersen (2012). "Critical Carnist Studies". Society & Animals. 20: 111–112. doi:10.1163/156853012x614404.
^ Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise (2014). "Carnism". Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. pp. 292–298. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_83. ISBN 978-94-007-0928-7.
^ Dato-On, Mary Conway (2014-10-27). The Sustainable Global Marketplace. ISBN 9783319108735.
^ Anderson, Will (2013-03-29). This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology. ISBN 9781780998909.
^ Kenneth joel Shapiro (1 June 2015). ""I am a Vegetarian": Reflections on a Way of Being". ResearchGate.
^ Frye, Joshua; Bruner, Michael S. (2012). The Rhetoric of Food. ISBN 9780415500715.
^ "Carnism explains how animals can be loved and eaten". The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram.
^ Phillips-Nania, Erik. Unity: The Art and Science of Transformational Change. ISBN 9781312785960.

Redirect to the book. There is plenty of coverage of both the book and author, but little of the concept itself. That said, I'm surprised this is up for a fourth nomination so soon after the last.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, and protect the redirect Good lord is this article ever a nonsensical crock of shit. Jtrainor (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the most paradigmatic "I don't like it" I've ever seen. Would you look at that? There are concepts in some corners of academia that Jtrainor doesn't like. Thank God he's here to tell us which ones are too "nonsensical" to belong on Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DUCK. I'm calling it as I see it. And speaking of WP:DUCK, what we have here isn't just normal salt: instead, we have ADVANCED salt. Jtrainor (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I pretty much echo the nominator and Softlavender's posts. Some kind of protection might be needed to prevent this from just popping up again in this manner as Jtrainor alludes to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to keep per additional sources by Josh Milburn, Northamerica, Andrew D. and Sammy1339. I see multiple examples of significant coverage in established mainstream and academic souces, and especially the extensive entry on Springer's Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics is something significant enough for a claim of notability for the concept. Cavarrone 08:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The academic sources do exist, so this isn't just about Melanie Joy or her book. It's about the idea that animals have become invisible within discourses about eating, and how to make them visible again. Even if you disagree with it, it's an interesting idea about language and ideology. The difficulty of merging to the book is that people will object if sources are added there that discuss carnism but not Joy, so a lot of material will be lost. Sammy1339 was interrupted mid-rewrite by too much discussion on the talk page and elsewhere. I would like to see him be allowed to finish it.

As others have noted, sources include:

Martin Gibert, Élise Desaulniers (2014), "Carnism," Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, Springer Netherlands, pp. 292–298.
Rui Pedro Fonseca (2015). [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=58725^{[predatory publisher]} "The Presence of Carnism on Portuguese Television,"] Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, pp. 48–55.
Carrie Packwood-Freeman, Oana Leventi Perez (2012). "Pardon Your Turkey and Eat Him Too," in Joshua J. Frye, Michael S. Bruner (eds.), The Rhetoric of Food: Discourse, Materiality, and Power, Routledge, p. 103ff.
Kristof Dhont, Gordon Hodson (2014). "Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?" Personality and Individual Differences, 64, pp. 12–17.
J. Gutjahr (2013). "The reintroduction of animals and slaughter into discourses of meat eating," in Helena Röcklinsberg, Per Sandin (eds.), The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market, and the law, Springer, pp. 380–383.

Together with the news sources, these would normally be enough to show that a topic is notable. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per SV up above. The article meets and exceeds all the basic requirements for a standalone subject. My only quibble regards the deflection of blame for the current problem. There is nothing stopping Sammy1339 or SV from creating a polished version in a sandbox. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I basically have to invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY on that. The fight over this went on pretty much all day every day for six weeks, and included endless quibbles about things as minor as whether something is "orthodox" or "conventional", interspersed with an ever-shifting series of new, creative ideas for getting rid of the whole article. It's the reason I didn't edit WP at all for almost 3 months, and I only came back because I noticed the merge discussion, and the discussion about the psych article, and this discussion, representing three simultaneous ways it could be eliminated. Why should I play in my sandbox? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most active editors on Wikipedia use draft space sandbox or user subpages to work on material. This is especially true when there is a bottleneck on talk. You can't control what other people argue about, but you can use your sandbox to develop material to point to for review or merging as a new revision. It isn't helpful to blame the article talk page discussion when you don't have an alternate revision ready to go. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting a little off topic. IMHO development was stalled by over-application of WP:BRD and under-application of WP:AGF, but that's a conversation for later. FourViolas (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are a few papers in obscure journals really significant? A bunch of non-notable sources don't really equal a notable one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy WP:N, sources must be reliable, not necessarily "notable". Books and papers vetted by the scholarly community, such as those published by well-regarded academic presses like Springer and Routledge, are reliable even if they haven't themselves been discussed in depth by two independent published RS. FourViolas (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Um... how's that, logically, meant to work? You're trying to claim a WP:NEOLOGISM is notable, but don't need to show it's used in notable sources - anything will do? That's just WP:WIKILAWYERING, using the letter of a general statement to force it to work somewhere it clearly doesn't apply. We're trying to establish this as independent of the book. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, to put it mildly, you're pretty confused here. Reliable (not notable) sources are used to establish notability, as per the general notability guideline. Books from respected academic presses and peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard of reliability (see, for example, the second bullet of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and the second sentence of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources). There's no wikilawyering here, you're simply misinterpreting notability requirements. You're displaying a gross misunderstanding of the relevant guidelines. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But simply cannot be used to justify a forking off from the book that created the neologism. Notable sources besides the book are required to show that, to sufficient extent that it wouldn't be merely a legacy section for the book. It's nonsense to suggest anything else, otherwise, you could fork infinitely. And it's not like the article as it stands is worthwhile: I think everyone knows it's getting more-or-less stubbified if it's kept, as noone is arguing for it not being a massive WP:COATRACK. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable sources besides the book are required to show that". So you keep claiming, but this is not required by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. There are editorial questions to be asked about the article (including, perhaps, whether it would be better off merged into the article on the book- something I don't support) but none of them (beyond, perhaps, questions related to the inclusion of wikilinks...) involves the "notability of the sources". I am not sure where you have gotten this idea from, but it's really one you need to be rid of. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's helpful, there's also a passing mention of carnism in Marguerite M. Regan (2014). "Feminism, Vegetarianism, and Colonial Resistence in Eighteenth-Century British Novels," Studies in the Novel (pp. 275–292) p. 283. JSTOR 23882895: "An early critic of carnism, she [Catharine Macaulay] asserts that 'the taste of flesh is not natural to the human palate, when not vitiated by carnivorous habits.'"

I found that significant because Regan doesn't explain what carnism is. She's assumes that a well-informed reader will know what it means. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, that's not quite true. Regan writes a few pages earlier,

Vegetarianism....serves as a protest against what one recent writer has dubbed “carnism,” the entrenched belief system that is “resistant to scrutiny” and that considers the “eating [of] certain animals…ethical and appropriate” (Joy 30).

However, this "anarchist geography" paper and this (undergrad-) published body image paper do use the term in passing as you describe, without bothering to define it or cite Joy. FourViolas (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I searched for carnism and carnist, and found it only once in the text and once in the references. But regardless, the point stands that it's an example of the kind of academic use we look for (cf. Josh Milburn's point about growing traction), and it's interesting that the author applies it retroactively. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sv Min al Khadr (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable topic, good sourcing, and evidence that this term is widely cited. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. This is an unnotable neologism being used as an coatrack. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Regardless of the state of our current article and its sources, I think the Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics (source 1, accurately summarized by the nominator) is enough by itself to make the situation clear: "carnism" is "Melanie Joy’s view on food ethics". Therefore, it is not independently notable from the book in which she expounds this view, and we should not have an article falsely describing her view as if it were something broader-based than what it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what "synonym" means in the context of the encyclopedia; as used, they're more like keywords to aid search or to avoid mostly-duplicate listings. So, for example, Carolyn Korsmeyer's entry on "Aesthetic Value, Art, and Food" lists "Aesthetics", "Art", "Cuisines" "Ethical eating", "Gustatory pleasure" and "Taste" as synonyms, while Bernard Rollin's entry on "Beef Production: Ethical Issues" includes "animal welfare in the beef industry", "food safety", "human and animal health", "husbandry and industry" and "sustainability of the beef industry" as synonyms. In this context, listing something of a "synonym" as something else should not be taken to imply that they are the same thing. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I've been a bit too talkative in this discussion, but I think this needs to be responded to. Although I agree with Josh Milburn that this one line in the "Synonyms" section should not be taken too literally, it's true that the entry focuses heavily (not exclusively) on Joy. But I also have to point out this is not the only encyclopedia article on "carnism": there's also one in German here ("Karnismus" on p.191, as you can see in the table of contents[75].) And generally there are many sources which take the concept significantly beyond Joy's work. A couple examples are the foreign language academic books by Mahlke and Larue, which both apply the term retroactively - Mahlke, for example, says in her book that carnism is the "central crux of speciesism" and refers this idea to a 2002 (pre-"carnism") quote of feminist writer Carol Adams. In the sources listed above by North America, SV, and myself there are many which go into much more depth than Joy about the concept and I don't understand why this is being ignored. There are also all the news sources. Many of these sources cannot be artificially jammed into Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:"News- 239 results, Books - 1890 results, Scholar - 219 results, Highbeam - 10 results". 169000 ghits on regular google. If anyone has issues with the content in the article or its sources, that isn't reason to delete the article. The subject is notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator user:Adam Cuerden in his argument writes: "The term does not have any significant usage outside of the book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism, which has its own article. This article is a giant WP:COATRACK based on synthesis of sources that do not mention the term, and serves as a POV fork of the main article, advocating for the use of the term (and also for the truth of the term). The thing is, this article is one of the most actively, intentionally misleading articles on Wikipedia as to the prominence of the term, an effective WP:HOAX that adds swathes of material not related to carnism into it in order to give the illusion of notability separate from the book's." My arguments are: (1) It is incorrect that the term doesn't have significant usage... as demonstrated by the various results above. (2) I don't understand what he means to communicate by COATRACK or "truth of the term", I read from what he's written that he doesn't like the term but that is no reason for deleting the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogesh Khandke: I'm sorry, but when the name of the concept is in the book's title - and we all agree the book's notable - simply showing the termm appears in documents shows nothing. Every presence of the notable book's title will, in and of itself, provide a usage of the term, without showing any actual usage. If anything, given the notability of the book, those values seem very low, and tend to show lack of significant usage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over one hundred thousand ghits minus Melanie minus Joy and over 1000 in google books.[76]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, my google search only shows 99,900 ghits for the topic minus Melanie minus Joy. What gives?

. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reasons of many others why this is notable, even if I personally disagree that the term should be notable. Also as per my comments in multiple previous discussions on this topic. This nomination represents exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia's consensus-building structure. If you nominate something dozens of times, you'll eventually get the answer you want. The fact that this has gone through the nomination process three times (two recently) and been kept each time should have indicated to a potential nominator acting in good faith that the article should not be nominated unless new concerns are brought up. Consensus can change, yada, yada, but there's a fine line between gauging whether consensus has changed and hoping that you catch the right people at busy times in their lives so you can get a different pool to turn out for the vote. If this is deleted, I assume several people would cry foul if editors filed repetitious deletion reviews. That's not how Wikipedia's process is meant to work. It's a clear abuse of consensus-building. ~ Rob^Talk 11:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: Actually, the results were delete, delete, no consensus. It does help not to bash nomination based on inaccuracies. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hermina Dunz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails WP:GNG. While some argue that 110 yr+ people are notabile automatically (they are not and there is no guideline that says so) this person just reached 110, the bottom cut off for super old. Best line is "Mayor Siegfried Nagl, said... that Dunz was in good shape for a woman of her age" which is a nice thing to say to any woman aged over about 100. Best of all though is another user suggested this article for deletion [77] that usually votes to keep every article about the super old. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to list Where applicable, I always go straight to WP:NOPAGE, thus avoiding the notability debate. The most interesting thing said about this person is: "Her party was attended by Graz Mayor Siegfried Nagl, who was quoted as saying at the time that Dunz was in good shape for a woman of her age." (Crikey, just realized Legacypac said the same thing.) EEng (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else could the Mayor say given she was still breathing? Any shape is good shape at her age. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the old joke that growing old isn't so bad when you consider the alternative. EEng (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--Inception2010 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been tagged since April 2013 for having only one reference (now a dead link) and as possibly failing to meet our general notability guideline. It's never been improved. Being a supercentenarian (110+) is not inherently notable. I haven't searched exhaustively, but what I could find was a bunch of sites that mirror Wikipedia and a passing mention in a work of fiction [78]. There's no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There's nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2016 (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. It's clear that this won't simply be deleted. The discussion is very slightly leaning keep, but a redirect may also be in order. Discussion regarding the article can continue on its talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fitchburg Trappers[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ice hockey team. It was disbanded after playing just six games. I nominated this at PROD, but it was declined by User:Djsasso: "minor pro teams are notable. Especially ones that fail in the middle of a season."

Taking this to AFD to see what other users think. Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a professional team in a professional league. May I ask the basis for your conclusion that it's non-notable? Ravenswing 00:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atlantic Coast Hockey League, another article either way and perhaps this one is best applicable, as although participating at a notable league, there's hardly much here regardless and is likley best as part of another article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional team in a professional league. A team folding in the middle of the season would have easily caused news stories in the other cities in the league which would allow it to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Atlantic Coast Hockey League, no evidence team ever received significant coverage in reliable sources. Proquest turned up only passing mentions even in the Boston Globe, which usually offers some substantial coverage of local, minor league teams. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth keeping in mind that a team that existed in 1981-1982 is likely to have a low number of online references, but references are not required to be online by either WP:N or WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly from that far back it's tough to find online refs that aren't behind a paywall; of the ones to which I have free access, they don't run earlier than 1988. I've got one from the Globe: a Leigh Montville column from Feb 1982 discussing Vince McMahon's involvement in the ACHL. Ravenswing 12:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this was a professional team playing in a professional league, and for the same reason the PRoD was declined. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hypnoflip Invasion[edit]

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

Can't find any significant coverage of this album, just a couple of blog posts. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per A9. Azealia911 _talk 02:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does meet WP:NALBUM #2, having charted on both the Belgian and French music charts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be more than just a couple of blogs in my search. There's more info on the French article which could be added and the band (Stupeflip) could get an article which would solve the linking issues. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TaylorMoore2, please give examples of the reliable, third-party sources your searches found. Azealia911 _talk 23:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's apparently hardly much here yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy/snow delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skype High[edit]

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

CSD'd it under G3. Got reverted. Taking to AfD. Obvious Hoax. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this moronic article. its crap.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.25.3 (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax/nonsense article. Citobun (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear hoax with a side of possible socking. GAB^Hello! 06:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update GAB! :)--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Clearly non-notable. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete candidate. Hoax, nonsense, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. Obvious hoax is obvious. sst✈ 06:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 06:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Collar[edit]

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

Not a notable band. JDDJS (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BAND. sst✈ 04:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go Solutions Group, Inc.[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable source coverage of this company; not notable as far as I can tell. Sam Walton (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not seem to be notable, and I'm surprised it wasn't AfD'd sooner. :) An internet search turned up nothing but trivial entries. As a comment, the page was created and extensively edited by what appears to be a WP:SPI. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently consists of nothing to suggest solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambur-Papanasam Road[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability issue Antan O 10:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not every road is notable. sst✈ 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the absence of this route being designated as a national or state/provincial/territorial-level route, WP:GNG comes into play, and there does not appear to be sufficient notability for this route to be featured in the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sambankulam Road[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability issue Antan O 10:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not every road is notable. sst✈ 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In the absence of this route being designated as a national or state/provincial/territorial-level route, WP:GNG comes into play, and there does not appear to be sufficient notability for this route to be featured in the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bushranger. I can't find a lot of RS involving this particular road. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasailam Road[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability issue Antan O 10:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and sources, per WP:GEOROAD, this article lacks notability since it is just a regional road without many secondary sources. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not every road is notable. sst✈ 04:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No clear indication as to why this road merits including in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the absence of this route being designated as a national or state/provincial/territorial-level route, WP:GNG comes into play, and there does not appear to be sufficient notability for this route to be featured in the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 2 January 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-M[edit]

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

Appears to fail wp:GNG. After some searching, most mentions seem to be by Cato websites (not independent) or on blogs (not reliable). In particular, notability is not inherited so, while Cato is notable, its blogs may not be. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had tagged this to encourage its author to add any available references to demonstrate notability, but none have been forthcoming, nor are my searches locating any. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 3 January 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hegau[edit]

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. 68.231.77.22 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) - I apparently was logged out while editing. This comment is mine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. It is also clear, from the map and description in this article, that the intersection is unusual, perhaps unique, in form, for a reason likely to be explained in reliable sources. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 2nd choice Redirect to Bundesautobahn_81 with Template:R with possibilities I have been studying this AfD this morning and used Google translate to open up the two references. I have also looked at the source of the map in the article. I also looked at the Dutch and German articles. The Dutch has a map that would be useful. It is interesting to compare the map in the article to the similar map at www.autobahnkreuze-online.de/Kreuz_Hegau, because the later shows the name of the topic. Much of the article is verifiable from maps and the other sources provided. I'm less sure about the verifiability of the history.

This is now the third AfD I have studied with identical vague unsupported claims in the nomination. As for wp:notability, if this topic has not been wp:noticed by the world at large, what is it that the w:de:Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute) has been reporting on a regular basis since 2005? Is the alleged traffic of 50,000 daily riding on a fake topic, and the commuters really use a cow pasture? Is the interchange sending out press releases in such a way that cartographers are being subverted by money spent on PR agencies? No, AfDs like this need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Or better yet, IMO, skip the prods, speedy delete nominations, and AfDs entirely and encourage our content contributors to produce more instead of driving them off with template bombing. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of that above points to notability. Simple existence. Which isn't the same thing. 50k per day is very light traffic on a major thoroughfare. Not notable is not vague. In fact, it's one of the basic qualifications. There are German interchanges which do show some notability, such as Frankfurter Kreuz or Kamener Kreuz, or ones which might be notable, like Schönefelder Kreuz, due to its connection to the Berlin Wall. But those have actual claims of notability, not mere existence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points about wp:notability: The first is that even if this topic were deemed non-notable, given the presence of merge targets, non-notability is not a deletion argument. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg, "Regarding the mention of a previous Afd for Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, one of the statements there was, 'the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted.' " I also said, "The nomination argument that this topic is 'non-notable' does not reflect the basic concept of notability on Wikipedia...roads in Western civilization receive on-going and in-depth attention from multiple layers of government, cartographers, and news media. The existence of potholes can remove elected officials. Arguments at AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT."

Your claim of "very light traffic" is something of a WP:NOT argument, but you've not provided any metric to identify a cut off. I seem to recall that the traffic level near a large mall in Missouri was 33,000, so 50,000 sounds to me like a high traffic volume. In this case, my sense is that autobahns exist to carry a lot of traffic, so any of these interchanges deemed worthy of being named do not seem to fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, in case you missed it, might I refer you to Wikipedia's deletion policy, in particular, take a look at WP:DEL8, in case you missed it, which clearly says that if an article isn't notable, than that's a reason for deletion. I would have suggested merge, if I felt there was material here to warrant it. I dont'. Second, I've stated that it's not notable, now per AfD, it is encumbant on those !voting keep to show that it is notable, so your assertion that I provide the metric is a bit misplaced. However, several interchanges with more than double that traffic have been deleted in recent weeks, so consensus would appear to be that 50k isn't a lot. But, we just agree to disagree on this one. It happens. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could reply, but I'm not going to risk an argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at this article, and as I said above I'm not sure about the verifiability of the History section. Also, although WP:RS maps are available to our readers for WP:V verification, the article itself lacks a map. A redirect may be easier for User:Bahnfrend et al to refine the article when they are ready than adding cn tags to the current article. Not sure. Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is one of the few of these with a potentially interesting layout but again, the problem is that neither the text nor (apparently) the sources say this. If you look at an American article, say on the Springfield Interchange, one finds citations testifying to the notoriety of these exercises in highway macrame. These German articles as a group lack these notices. We need claims to notability, and none of these articles have them or for that matter appear to have to potential for it. Mangoe (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions either do not address or reject the community-accepted requirement for article topics, no matter their nationality, to be the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources (WP:N). These opinions are accordingly given less weight. Sandstein 12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Hockenheim[edit]

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere, "we would keep them if they were British" because a named interchange in Jolly Olde would very likely be notable. A named interchange on the Autobahn is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. We should not be "expand[ing] equal coverage" by covering non-notable subjects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick look at the Brit categories shows very few articles other than on roundabouts and some other intersections in London. I'm a bit dubious as to the latter, though perhaps London is also a state of mind, but in any case there's no British precedent for highway interchanges to be notable as a rule. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what WP:RUNOFTHEMILL has to says about streets,

“

For example, a detailed street map shows every street within a city, down to every cul-de-sac with just four houses. Every city has at least several detailed street maps that have been published. But in one square mile of an urban area, there are hundreds, even thousands of streets. And there can be hundreds of square miles within a city and its suburbs. It is not practical to create an article on every single street, as the high volume might overwhelm the capacity of available editors to maintain them.

”

“

What not to create

The side street where once every few years, a news-reported crime has occurred

”

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above and elsewhere, Autobahn interchanges are invariably named and, therefore, have no special presumption of notability from their status. There is no apparent evidence that this interchange passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no consensus for the default retention of interchanges, period, and there is no claim that this one is notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 6 with Template:R with possibilities Every Kreuz or Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and the encyclopedia has good coverage of the Autobahns. There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and this one policy requirement refutes each of the above delete arguments or pseudo-arguments. The most that policy allows with a consensus of non-notability is a full merge to one of the target articles. (This would be before consideration of WP:DUE and WP:V.) The argument that this topic fails WP:GNG carries little weight, since first of all it is certainly not clear that it fails WP:GNG, and secondly since these Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large". Given that major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media as well as the general public, editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. This article needs work, so a redirect would be ok with me for now, but this is primarily a decision of the editors maintaining the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2016 (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. The early "delete" opinions were given before sources were provided in this discussion. Sandstein 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food Matters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability or particularly wide distribution. A smattering of what appear to be blog articles are the primary sources. Some WP:FRINGE issues, given the film's advocacy for Orthomolecular medicine, though, were it notable, that could likely be dealt with - the lack of notability moves this into delete. Does not even come close to the film notability standards. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete based on reviews of dubious expertise. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, this article is reaching far for notability. Delta13C (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based on available sources, not sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable promotional faux-documentary. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from "Doco dishes up success", Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 January 2010. Croot, James (4 October 2008), "Wake-up call on food quality", The Press (Christchurch) is a good source. This provides more coverage. The maker website's press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for WP:GNG.

From the last afd Taylor Trescott found sources, saying "I'd say this lengthy source from the The Gazette establishes notability. There is also some coverage here in The Sunday Star-Times. In this book here, it's called "amazing" and a movie "everyone should see"."

Note that above delete comments are mostly WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE so should be discounted. Nomination is based on the current state of the article and not on available sources so doesn't hold much water. Not have addressed any of the sources presented during the last afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. This is a collection of marginal sources. The Australian Business Review is less about the film and more about whether you can make money off such films. The Sunday Star Times one has a contest in it, indicating a press release/marketing stunt being behind it. The Canada.com is of dubious sourcing; appears to be a blog-like column stolen from a regional newspaper (I think maybe the Montreal Gazette?) They just don't amount to evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen? Don't know where that comes from, both Canada.com and Montreal Gazette are Postmedia Network publications. Even if you are dubious about the "blog-like" link presented it doesn't matter that much, It originally appear in the Gazette newspaper itself (19 September 2008, section Arts & Life: Movies, page D1). That is a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how about Sunshine Coast Daily and The Press (Christchurch). And the ones indicated on the makers website? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFSOURCES. Doesn't meet other criteria for notability such as "...widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.." Blue Riband► 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (films) says, "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow." The general notability guideline is restated at Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles. It is clear that Food Matters has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be aware of WP:CANVASSING by the nominator here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted this deletion discussion on a noticeboard dedicated to such things. This is canvassing now? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in light of sources from User:duffbeerforme and the following: [79], [80], [81]. As always, the pseudoscience needs to be named as pseudoscience, but deleting the article isn't a good alternative to refuting the film's questionable claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by duffbeerforme (talk · contribs) and Sammy1339 (talk · contribs). The Gazette, The Sunday Star-Times, Mother Nature Network, and Sunshine Coast Daily all provide significant coverage of Food Matters. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Food Matters to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and copy edit per sources. Passes WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8]. Per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Food Matters - a lot more than drugs". Montreal Gazette.
^ "Review of the independently funded film 'Food Matters'". Mother Nature Network.
^ "Doco dishes up success". Sunshine Coast Daily.
^ "Proof's in the eating". The Sunday Star-Times.
^ "Food Matters founder to speak in Caloundra". Sunshine Coast Daily.
^ "New Film Offers Wisdom on Struggling Health Care System: "Food Matters"". Heart Disease Weekly. (subscription required)
^ "Film informs about therapeutic nutrition". Townsend Letter. (subscription required) (Short article)
^ "Bite-Size Indies in Competition on Your Couch". The New York Times. (1 paragraph)

Keep - With the sources provided by Northamerica1000 and duffbeerforme, passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of source material for this topic, some of might include Pharma Law Weekly's article New Film Offers Wisdom on Struggling Health Care System: “Food Matters” (reproduced by PRWeb), See 'King Corn' at Hallwalls, Films promote food ideals. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and immediately add all of duffbeerforme's sources as inline citations to the article. It seems the problem with the article was in not providing proper sourcing rather than demonstrating that no such sourcing exists. To that extent this is a very good outcome of this AfD, in that it should spur real improvement to a Wikipedia article. -Markeer 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Grace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as non-notable actor. Maybe 2nd time's the charm. Quis separabit? 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD reasoning. Extensive body of work, plus awards and nominations. Lithorien (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is absurd. I just removed a mess of POV/OR. This is a vanity page. Quis separabit? 15:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but would you mind addressing the actual issue? The SAG award and her work as a whole seems to imply - if not outright prove - notability. Why do you think it doesn't? Lithorien (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry -- she didn't win the SAG award, she was nominated only. As far the body of work, I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. Quis separabit? 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, May meet NACTOR but certainly fails GNG, Had she Won the award then I could understand but she was only nominated so there's no reason to keep the article. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:Verified and WP:CITE. One reference is an expired link and the other directs to a mature content site. There shouldn't be too much trouble to find citations if a person is notable.Blue Riband► 18:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the mature content site link with a clean archived link. Apparently the subject won an award from a Christian film and television group, which failed to renew their domain name after several years, resulting in the domain name eventually being acquired by a sex website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lithorien is correct that there's a body of work here. The problem is that it's almost exclusively as a TV guest star and in minor film roles. WP:NACTOR demands "significant roles" and I just don't see that here... Note also that the "SAG Award nomination [was] for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Theatrical Motion Picture alongside her co-stars in 1999" in Magnolia so the "SAG award nomination" wasn't even specific to her. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the only solidly notable thing would be the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Award and although she has a few works, we can wait for a better solid article so draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per others, very clear case. Delta13C (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2016 (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 Procedural Close. Article already speedy deleted at 12:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC) by Jimfbleak (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A9, G11) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind, Repeat It[edit]

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

Violates and vandalism of copyright of Martin Garrix and Ed Sheeran Timothe88 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Timothe88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Care to elaborate on what you mean by "violates [..] copyright"? I see no copyrighted material on the article. Just to note, Timothe88 is an single purpose account who has only edited relating to this AfD and article -- samtar ^whisper 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's violates [..] copyright because it's only recorded Martin Garrix and Ed Sheeran, no Ron Rave. - Timothe88 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothe88: Okay, well that's not a copyright violation as we see it - however, it seems the article's subject is not very noteworthy and fails the General Notability Guidelines, so I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted (see below) -- samtar ^whisper 11:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for Speedy Deletion: Remix of track by non-notable musical artist, fails WP:GNG, artist does not have a Wikipedia article + no references. Further, CSD G11 applies as the article is serving only to promote a remix. Also tagged A9 as the article focuses on the remix and not the original, and the remix artist {Ron Rave) does not have a Wikipedia article. -- samtar ^whisper 11:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rave was singing this unrealeased single for only cover single - Timothe88 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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