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. KTC (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shamim A. Aarzoo[edit]

Shamim A. Aarzoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lucknow Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Lucknow Literary Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The Lucknow Observer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Kyunki Shahar Hai Aapka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-notable person and his array of non-notable achievements. The articles about the societies, festivals and publications that Aarzoo has founded were all created by himself. The citations within the biography are almost all to the websites of those societies, festivals and publications, with the exception of some run-of-the-mill interest stories about the literary festival. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Josu4u (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that the creators of these articles have been identified as a sockfarm and blocked. (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaarzoo.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete- Fails WP:GNG.Ireneshih (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Possible also created with WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability whatsoever, COI issues aside. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - pure promotionalism. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 25 November 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 —Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bills Toronto Series broadcasters[edit]

List of Bills Toronto Series broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability Fram (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article without a purpose; the broadcasters of Buffalo Bills games are in List of Buffalo Bills broadcasters already and we don't call out regular season game broadcasters outside of their "NFL on (network)" articles. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may be one of the easiest votes I've ever cast. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No, no, no, no. Zero reliable sources in the article, and no significant coverage of the list subject in reliable, independent sources that I can find. What coverage I did find were wiki mirror pages, of either the current or past versions of the article, as I grow increasingly dismayed of Wikipedia serving, in effect, as its own source contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. Most, if not all, of these NFL and CFB "broadcaster" lists are suspect per WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails every measure for notability I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 23 November 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. With a coi issue ip votes get less weight - especially as they are not specific Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Till We Meet Again (2015 film)[edit]

Till We Meet Again (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with sources but lacks any that establish notability. Film lacks full-length reviews. Has some awards but none are major duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It definitely looks like there's some COI editing going on here, but I'm not sure about the notability. I did some minor cleanup on the article to fix the worst of the promotional content, peacock wording, and undue emphasis on awards. It looks a bit more presentable now, but there's still the problem of significant coverage in reliable sources. As it stands right now, most of the sourcing is primary sources (interviews, awards pages at film festivals, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep. Has sufficient article accreditation, has notability and won some greater awards though not the very major ones but still. references in the article are almost all directly pointing to the topic and the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.33 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Comment"". Most related articles can be found listed at these two pages, please (more experienced Wiki Users) review and validate their significance. http://www.johnmatton.com/articles/ and http://www.tillwemeetagainmovie.com/press/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.33 (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep .This article has plenty of information and the film is notable.for receiving awards.In fact this article is a lot better than the thousands of others that have far fewer sources..In my opinion all films should have a wiki article ,why is there such a desire to restrict information?46.208.73.116 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has won a handful of minor awards, but nothing I can see that pushes this past the WP:GNG, despite the bombardment of poor sources in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 29 November 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. Ill userfy this on request Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic International Film Festival[edit]

Nordic International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Redirect with a properly sourced mention to Scandinavia House – The Nordic Center in America. I find WP:BEFORE to be kind of fun. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really Schmidt? WP:GHITS and Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers. I find actually reading things to be kind of revealing.

1. press release

2. unrelated, "The Spanish short film 'Cocote (Story of a Dog)', the Valencian filmmaker Pacheco Iborra, won the Audience Award in the Third Edition of the West Nordic International Film Festival, held in Alesund (Norway)."

3. again the West Nordic International Film Festival

4. again the West Nordic International Film Festival

5. press release, passing mention

6. again the West Nordic International Film Festival

7. again the West Nordic International Film Festival

8. again the West Nordic International Film Festival

9. festival in Haugesund not New York

10. false hit, article about setting a bonfire

A mention based on what? Here is a better search for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really Duffbeerforme? Were you aware that you can add a "-West" (minus west) to a search parameter, to remove false positives? I am in no way promoting a keep, so do not act so outraged. All I am suggesting is that even in lacking notability for its own article, since it can be sourced (even if by them) that the festival is run by and promoted by Scandinavia House – The Nordic Center in America, that at the minimum it serves our readers through that minor bit of information being available to them. No more. No less. A pre-emptive redirect in the first place would have prevented unnecessary bluster.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not outraged, disappointed. Were you aware that you can add a "-West" (minus west) to a search parameter, to remove false positives? Run by them? Not according to the press release. Scandinavia House is just the venue. I'm opposed to a selfserving, self referenced mention. Wikipedia is not a directory of every non notable event that occurs. They show other movies there, they are not mentioned either. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. WP:NOPAGE applies here, and Schmidt's suggested target is appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @MichaelQSchmidt: why is Scandinavia House – The Nordic Center in America suggested as target for redirection, the festival is not organized by ASF? From which it follows, NewYorkActuary, that WP:NOPAGE does not apply. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sam Sailor: Because THAT is where it has been and is based, and the location for which it has press. IE: "Nordic International Film Festival is based in New York City at the renowned Scandinavia House on Park Avenue also called the Nordic Center." Under WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, had there been articles on its founder Johan Matton, it would have been reasonable for me to have suggested it go there instead. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - clearly not enough coverage to show notability for an article of its own, but no harm in the redirect, since it's unlikely another article of that exact name will be created. I find MichaelQSchmidt's argument for the target very credible. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Can someone go through their press articles before a decision is made. Convenient listed on their web site (many foreign, Scandinavian articles), I'm not experienced enough to judge which articles would be sufficient. http://www.nordicfilmfest.org/press/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.33 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested evaluations: While Long Island Exchange is New York City local, it is fine for New York City topics, but I note it clarifies that this year was the FIRST year for this festival. Access New York is also local, and while I might run Swedish text through a translator,[1] I do not speak Swedish to able to know what the reporter is saying. Zimbio is simply sharing images. The red carpet interviews posted to YouTUbe show us who attended, but attendees do not give notability. Getty images are simply more event images. DailyVoice #1 & #2 are okay, as it is expected that a New York City source might cover a a New York City event. Press Reader is good, even if in Swedish. Cognacs Corner magazine might be okay.[2] as New York City based media is expected to cover New York City entertainment news. Dans Papers may also be okay for covering New York City topics,[3] as they are New York based. NYevents.us is essentially an Evensi press release-announcement. As official representation of the Danish Embassy, usa.um.dj is okay for Dainish-related news. Film Courage appears to be suitable,[4] but is a source with a very narrow focus. Fine Art Magazine is simply an announcement. Fashionality.NYC appears suitable, but simply offers a list of what was to screen. Iceland Naturally seems fine for Iceland-related news for New Yorkers, as official information outlet for the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Washington, Norway.org is fine. As official information outlet for Consulate General of Sweden, swedenabroad.com is fine. Digital Journal is simply a press release. EIN News is a press release service. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• My conclusion: As this is only the festival's first year, there might not be a second. And with available sources of its first event, speaking of it at the redirect target is sensible, and the article can always be resurrected if we have a second event and if that event gets press. Being the first makes this one a bit TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Addition to Schmidt: Thank you for checking all articles regarding the festival, I found that it has openend for submission and is confirmed for a recurring event and will return 2016. Ref: https://filmfreeway.com/festival/NordicInternationalFilmFestival and https://www.withoutabox.com/03film/03t_fin/03t_fin_fest_01over.php?festival_id=13977 and http://www.nordicfilmfest.org/ (Says they are open for submissions for 1016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.33 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This festival is clearly a recurring event ^[1][2] and gained a lot of direct press coverage the first year. ^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.30.33 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No, it is not clearly a recurring event. All we see from the cites is that the festival is asking for submissions for next year. That is not at all the same as actually holding the event. As for the most recent deluge of links, most of them were already evaluated by Schmidt and the very few that weren't add nothing of substance. Let's get some perspective here. This cite [5] lists about a dozen Italian film festivals in the United States, some that have been going on for quite a few years. But I don't see an article here on any of them. The best I can find is the Italian Film Fest in Vancouver (Canada). But this one doesn't have its own article either. It's simply mentioned in the article on its venue, the Italian Cultural Centre Vancouver. No one has made a compelling case for treating the instant festival in any other fashion. One last point, to the IP address that is urging a Keep -- you might have revealed more than you intended when you edited the subject article to add sentences such as "we strive to find ... " and "we screen the nominated films ... ". Do you have an undeclared conflict of interest here? If so, please see WP:COI. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Event received plenty of coverage in both the New York City media and the Scandinavian-American community. The most important Scandinavian film festival in the Americas. Martinogk (talk) 05:43, 26 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Jennens[edit]

John Jennens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Absolutely nothing in the article, it's wholly useless in its current state and hasn't had any info added to it in 5 years. Nothing about that guy on a google search - 4 people on linkedin, none likely to be him. No other info attributable to this particular individual. - Rayman60, 00:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Searches found a few links here and there but certainly nothing noteworthy. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing in searches about this particular John Jennens to show they meet notability criteria. At best, redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 25 November 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. joe decker^talk 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John May (executive)[edit]

John May (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, given that the subject is notable for being an executive of a company that is not itself notable enough for an article. WP:USUAL may apply, of course. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches don't show they pass notability criteria. At best redirect to the award page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 25 November 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes[edit]

Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Following the recent Arbcom case I'd now like to begin cleaning up our coverage of electronic cigarettes. This page is one of a number of forks of Electronic cigarette created over the past year. I know this article contains a lot of text, has been formatted to resemble an encyclopaedia article and it's got a lot of citations to reliable sources, but why do we have it? We have Electronic cigarette. We also have Safety of electronic cigarettes and Regulation of electronic cigarettes. What's the purpose of another fork?

I considered proposing mergers, but I don't think that's the right approach, because everything important from this article is already in the other articles I've mentioned. It's a needless fork and I hope you will agree with me that it should be deleted. —S Marshall T/C 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not a fork but a subpage of the main article. Regulations are law. This is positions of medical organizations. They are different. It is not like we do not have enough space. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A complex and developing subject which it is worth covering as fully as we can, since the view on e-cigs depends on balancing unknowns against uncertains. The section in the main article is much shorter, rightly. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The e-cig main page is certainly large enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT of material to subpages. Yobol (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The positions of medical organizations on this topic are certainly worth including in an encyclopedia. It is valuable information that is reliably sourced. Any argument that this topic should not be a standalone article should accompany a suggestion to merge or redirect rather than to delete. Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything not already there into Safety of electronic cigarettes. The encyclopedic issue is the healh impact, the reason this page exists is because organisations dispute that. I think most readers of one page will want to see the information on the other and most information is duplicated across the two pages. 2.218.103.23 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, single-edit ISP! Safety of electronic cigarettes is already 102K long, and organized by topic. This is 30K long, and organized differently, as well as covering other issues beyond safety. Do you really think it is a good idea to merge them? Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Safety is 53kB of readable prose and already contains some of the claims on this page. It could do with a major trimming as well. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The purpose of another subpage is that it is too much information for the main article. See WP:SPINOFF. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly too much information for the main article. It's also too much information for an encyclopaedia. In fact, it's basically a laundry list of everything a medical organisation has said about e-cigarettes in the past few years. It's written in something resembling WP:PROSELINE and prior to the Arbcom sanctions it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance". Now that we have Arbcom sanctions we no longer need the container. I do hope that if it's kept, those !voting "keep" in this discussion will be the ones cleaning it up into a proper summary-style article with a beginning, middle and end that's phrased in readable English.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a place for positions of medical organisations at WP, but it should be one place, whether it be in this article or another. It would be a good idea to use "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies" only, and not merely quote any group who expresses an opinion. P Walford (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much what the article does, surely? Plus some statements by key public health and healthcare organizations and charities, who have squads of experts on hand. The key interest of the article, although the current form does not point this out to the reader, is the somewhat startling difference between positions given in the two longest national sections, for the US and UK. Johnbod (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. The ADA quote is not from their official guidelines. CDPH are neither national nor international. Arguments can be made that some organisations (e.g. NACCHO) are political, not medical. I agree (if it's what you said): the difference between the positions of UK and US organisations should be mentioned to the reader. P Walford (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a fork of content which would usually be in a main article. Normally 1-2 sentences are enough but people like this content and it would be hard to provide a non-controversial summary in the main article without this list backing it up. The content is well sourced and I hope this leads to consensus on a more accessible summary being used elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 19 November 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. Those arguing to keep (one of whom is a WP:SPA, failed to provide policy-based arguments or reliable sources to demonstrate notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Rabbitt[edit]

Sean Rabbitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Figure skater from America. Fails WP:NSKATE. Highest finish at U.S. championships is 12th. Did medal in the Skate Canada Autumn Classic. The autumn classic was a "senior B" competition for 2014, however it was not in 2015 when Rabbit medaled. Prod was removed with no reason given. Bgwhite (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has notability. The Avengers (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Avengers As you are new, you should read nobility guidelines first. A mention in an article is not notable. A report of an event where he is mentioned is not notable. A blog is not notable. He fails WP:GNG and WP:NSKATE. You need show more than Google search. Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: may well be a great skater but does not qualify under WP:ATHLETE; it is TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - good skater, but does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and searches did not turn up enough for him to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He actually passes the WP:NSKATE. The 2015 Skate Canada Autumn Classic was not part of the Challenger Series, but it is still a competition recognized and acknowledged by the ISU, and as such is a Senior B international. It is listed on the ISU Calendar of Events page for the 2015-2016 figure skating season, with its own page, with links to the official Skate Canada website, ISU list of entries, and results. [6] (see October 12-18 section.) Therefore he passes WP:NSKATE and is entitled to have a Wikipedia page per number 5 of the Figure Skating Notability guidelines. Hawktailxl (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, pinging Bgwhite - Can you address Hawktailxl's user's comment that the 2015 event where he won a bronze was indeed "senior B" competition? I can't figure it out based on the sources provided. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Skating Union page link to the Skate Canada Autumn Classic 2015: http://www.isu.org/en/single-and-pair-skating-and-ice-dance/calendar-of-events/2015/10/skate-canada-autumn-classic-international Hawktailxl (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)HawktailxlHawktailxl (talk) 03:54, 18 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Songs, Volume 2 (Bing Crosby album)[edit]

Cowboy Songs, Volume 2 (Bing Crosby album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable pot-boiling collection of old recordings. Article is nothing but track listibgs & discographycruft; the only saving grace is the cover art. If you like that sort of thing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Koala15. But what about Cowboy Songs, Volume 1 (Bing Crosby album)? - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was transferred to both a 10-inch LP and set of 45s, sold many copies and these recordings proved Crosby's range of catalogue. Did you the know the first person to top a Country song chart was Bing Crosby? Two of his western songs were million-sellers and these songs had wide appeal at the time of their release. This articles should be kept for archival purposes and to help people who are selling these albums get more information on them. - (Utzdman55 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

My greengrocer sells lots of potatoes, and they are not notable. And he shiftys them without the aid of Wikipedia. The author of this comical objection clearly does not understand what an encyclopedia is for.TheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with question? Why is this different than the quite large number of his other albums shown in the album template? He and Frank were the Elvises of their day. If a Bing album is not historically notable (unfortunately I don't have the ability to time travel to the 40's to find the sources), then we might as well shut down the Wikipedia servers and go home. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment - a google search does turn up a large number of hits including numerous books in several languages. Most hits are minor. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No obvious signs of better coverage therefore a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is significant about this album apart from the individual tracks and Bing himself? I say "significant" because the fact of it being a Bing Crosby release means there can be a case for notability, but that doesn't mean it needs to have a stand-alone article. What would a WP:FA version of this article look like? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly happy with some type of compromise (something that I think we should do more of). What about a list of Bing country albums? Or a list of less notable Bing albums? VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further background now added to article. RETAIN (MACWILMSLO)

•  Comment: Still endorsing my delete vote. What has been added, is all background on the individual hits and vinylcruft. Notability for the album itself has still not been established. In other news: the AfD-deleted Cowboy Songs, Volume 1 (Bing Crosby album) has been recreated. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:47, 24 November 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. joe decker^talk 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Ranbir[edit]

Rana Ranbir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The two references are only the briefest of name-checks. Nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply found nothing better aside from some links at News and WP:INDAFD. Notifying past user Yamaguchi先生. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, should evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties come forward. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and I agree with Yamaguchi先生, without prejudice. Simply couldn't find in-depth coverage to show they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 25 November 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. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Publishing Group[edit]

OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Requested by subject article through OTRS Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OTRS Article appears at this point to be essentially entirely "this is a predatory company" material which is of marginal encyclopedic value. This has nothing to do with any issues as to whether any of its publications are RS for anything at all, but whether the article as it stands pretty much fails WP:NPOV and appears unlikely to reach that required state. Collect (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article simply reads like an attack page, violates all types of policies. Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- editor now blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note for clarity, Marlinsfan1988 was blocked on an issue not related to OMICS. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How do you know why he was blocked? ChemNerd (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the blocking administrator and was told there was no connection between Marlinsfan1988's block and the OMICS socking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Such as? SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as lots of "it has been suggested" and "some observers" type wording; a lede that gleefully mixes facts with opinions; past edits that have presented opinions as if they were facts [7]; past edits that have characterized the National Institutes of Health as being "the United States Government" [8], and generally piling up as much negative criticism of OMICS as google searches can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you aware that we don't delete articles based on the quality of past edits, but on the notability and encyclopedic suitability of the topic per se? LjL (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you aware that you should actually read what is written here before you post opinions? Reading would have informed you that I have already voted "keep", and I have said that content issues are not a reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought you were the same editor as the above, sue me. LjL (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just note the indents, easier than litigation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Lots of excellent sources, easily meets ORG and GNG. That none of these sources say anything positive about this company is not our fault. If there are problems with wording, that can be addressed by ordinary editing. --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep: WP:NPOV isn't about having "no" point of view. If the company mostly gets negative publicity through reliable enough sources, then so be it. If there is equally reliable positive information, it can be included. LjL (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep easily meets WP:CORP per in-depth coverage in Nature, Science, Chronicle of Higher Education and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this is not a WP:BLP and the content is entirely WP:NPOV summarising all of the reliable sources that are available. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is very badly written (was even worse in the recent past) and does, without any doubt, currently still read as an attack article that violates numerous guidelines on how to write content. However that is a content issue, not a reason to delete. OMICS Publishing Group seems to me to be notable enough to have an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We do seem to have enough to meet WP:CORP. Any problems with the article should be addressed through the normal editing process. I don't think WP:TNT applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And BTW, if editors don't think it's addressing the subject matter in a neutral way, tag it accordingly. At least it'll have the maintenance tag and call attention to the issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - per Randykitty. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Keep Having reviewed this article's sourcing, it seems to me it easily passes our notability guidelines, nor has any other policy-consistent deletion rationale been supplied--point in fact, for that reason, this is an extremely flawed nomination, OTRS or no. Addressing the comments of those two editors who have thus far !voted for delete, I can't see how this article constitutes an attack page simply by virtue of the fact that the sources we utilize are overwhelmingly critical of the company; there's no shortage of articles on topics for which the bulk of our sources are largely critical. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we present every topic as if the wider world were ambivalent about it. Rather it means that we keep our personal perspectives out of the matter and only report what reliable sources say, as accurately as we can. As such, our neutrality policies will often require us to relay information that is decidedly critical of a topic, from multiple sources, specifically because we do not filter the information through out own perspectives.

If anyone feels there are WP:WEIGHT issues with the article, they are free to provide any sources which which counterbalance the prevailing views being reported upon, and which are independent of the subject and meet our WP:RS standards. Likewise, if they feel that the prose lacks nuance that could contextualize our treatment of the sources in a more neutral fashion, they can suggest that. If they have no such sources or suggestions, it is manifestly inappropriate to denigrate the good faith efforts of others who have worked on this article, incorporating the reliable sources currently depended upon, by calling the article an "attack page". In any event, what we can clearly not do is delete the article without any policy-based deletion criteria. As no such argument has been supplied, I think a speedy keep is warranted here. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it troubling that many of the editors voting for keep in this AfD are also stating how perfect it currently is regarding its npov issues. Content issues are generally not a reason to delete, but these editors have all worked on the article and a head-in-the-sand attitude is going to make it difficult to address the article's obvious failings if the article is kept. The article is getting worse rather than better. Note the SIX references now added to support the "predatory" opinion in the lede, and the SIX more references added to support the laughable "United States government" allegation. Lede opinions that require large numbers of references is a sure sign that something is wrong.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably realize from my comments on the talk page that I think there's some room for improvement in the tone of the article, but calling it an "attack page" is a considerable exaggeration by any reasonable measure, in my editorial opinion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously -- it's fine for someone to nominate for deletion in an OTRS role, but notability is not at all in question here. The sources indicated by SmartSE demonstrate this, as do the others used on the article as sources. I really doubt things will change if we let this run for a whole week. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of some of the comments made I am actually moving from Keep in the direction towards Delete. The opinion of collect is correct: the article as it stands pretty much fails WP:NPOV. If it really is going to be unable to ever reach the required npov state, delete would be the correct decision to make (or reducing it to a stub). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have never found this type of attack article and surely fails WP:NPOV. Mirror360 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ( Confirmed sock --Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable, despite being predatory. SmartSE already made the case for this, so I won't repeat it here. The article, is also, unlike some claim, not an attack page. It's an accurate reflection of what reliable sources say about OMICS. That it's all negative does not mean that it's not a neutral and dispassionate article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of this article is clearly notable. The two delete recommendations (excluding the blocked socks) don't make any sense to me. Since when are "Requested by subject article through OTRS" and "Delete per OTRS" acceptable reasons to delete an article? If there are problems with balance in the article, just fix the balance. For the argument "fails WP:NPOV and appears unlikely to reach that required state", I find it completely unreasonable and un-Wikipedia-like to think that, if it is unbalanced, no balance could ever be achieved. ChemNerd (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is ONE blocked OMICS/Scholarscentral sock. The other block is a result of an unrelated issue. If an article fails nPOV, and appears to be never likely to meet nPOV requirements, then that is a legitimate reason to delete, regardless of notability. Assertions asserted here without ANY supporting evidence that the article meets WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:BOOMERANG, WP:CENSOR, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:COI, (and any other policy link that can be posted) are pointless without some supporting evidence. I have voted keep, but the article is NOT in good shape and all these blind assertions of its perfection are not going to help improve it if the result is keep. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that others are making "blind assertions of its perfection" is just plain nonsense. ChemNerd (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield: Perhaps you can tell us who exactly said that the article was perfect. Perhaps you can also explain why, given the slate of undeniable unassailable reliable sources, it is not enough to argue that this meets GNG. Finally, perhaps you can also explain how this article does not meet POV: the only reason why this company has any notability is because they publish predatory journals and organize crappy conferences. There are, literary, no reliable sources reporting positively about them, except for websites related to them. So pray tell us, how this article should be more balanced. I agree that the text can be made more encyclopedic (and the "US government" thing is indeed a bit silly - it's a government agency, not the whole government), but that is all really minor. I might add that the OMICS socks on the article talk page keep claiming that their journals are "PMC indexed". For what that actually means, see this blog post by an established authority in the field (and, hence, an RS even though it is a blog). --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict about that "minor thing" (wording that represented a US government agency as being THE United States Government) is what initiated this [9]. If it was so minor, and wrongly worded, why was it not just taken out to end the conflict? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The conflict was not about whether this should be saying "the US government" or "US gorvernment agency", but the claim by the OMICS editors that all that the letter was about was aa copyright infringement and that actually their journals were now endorsed by said government agency. If you look at the links they provided that were supposed to support that claim and compare it with the link in my post just above explaining what "PMC", "PubMed", and "MEDLINE" actually are, you will see that the arguments of these OMICS editors were completely disingenuous. THAT is what the ANI post was about, NOT about the minor issue of how this was worded. And, in the end, a US government agency does represent the US government... --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another look at the article and the source. It actually is the source that talks about the US government (the title of the source is "U.S. Government Accuses Open Access Publisher of Trademark Infringement"). --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG standards. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy SNOW Keep Has been said above, outside of WP:BOOMERANG, WP:CENSOR, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:COI. As notability is not temporary, suggest the precedent of two Keeps helps prevent this time-waste repeating. Widefox; talk 07:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs rewrite Should be cleaned up asap then we can let it be shown. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 18:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I blocked Peak2015 (talk · contribs · count) for canvassing related to this. —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It contains a lot of important information about the publisher.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. The coverage of this group in journals such as Science and Nature provided by SmartSE makes it pretty clearly notable. Article still needs work, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's NPOV issues in the headings, but plenty of coverage to meet notability. As noted above, negative coverage is still coverage. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came to this article after listening to a podcast on this topic, and was glad to find it was well covered. Elzbenz (talk) 02:52, 23 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor[edit]

Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable organisation, created by an editor with a declared conflict of interest and sourced only to the organisation themselves and a short mention on the website of another similar organisation. Thomas.W ^talk 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Since being nominated for deletion the article has been moved from Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor to correct a typo in the name, so please note that this nomination is about the article, not just the redirect. Thomas.W ^talk 06:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable organisation.--Yopie (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now. It is very unlikely that an international human rights organisation based and registered in Geneva is non-notable. A pity that there are so few sources in English, but chances are that sources in other languages (notably Arabic) exist. This is a case where we have to beware of systemic bias. Reserving final judgement until I've had a chance to look for more sources, including foreign-language sources. --NSH001 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It was founded in the wake of the Arab Spring, a very optomistic moment for human rights in the Arab world. It may have just sort of faded, never gotten proper funding... Could explain why it is "registered in Geneva", but doesn't seem to do much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 29 November 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 no consensus. No objection to speedy renom if this does not improve sourcing soon Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mulla Hamzah Gilani[edit]

Mulla Hamzah Gilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG.Contains original research and unsourced material. The references are fake and redirect back to the same page. Pixarh (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as I see no better improvement. No evidence of notability either. JugniSQ (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.Pixarh (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Totally unintentionally, I suspect, the nominator has failed to WP:AGF on the part of the article's creator, who to me seems probably sincere but needs to learn more about creating and editing Wikipedia articles. The references in the article are almost certainly not faked, but malformed because the article creator has used the wrong template. The article creator has then compounded his problems by mostly using Hijri years rather than standard CE dates. The book which the first reference (with the only CE date in the entire article) is intended to point to happens to be listed at the bottom of the article - it is almost certainly this work (though probably the fourth and last volume, for which I can not find a link, rather than the linked third volume). The other references simply have too little information to be identifiable, though the third link seems to be intended to refer to some work published in the mid-1980s that was in turn referring to Hazin Lahiji, and the fifth to a posthumous edition of something by Agha Bozorg Tehrani. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any accessible online coverage (beyond mentions in indexes) of this Iranian scholar of about 300 years ago - so unless the article creator comes back and either repairs his citations or lists his references fully enough, either here or at the article talk page, for others to check, we have no way of telling whether reliable sources cover him in enough detail to make him notable, or do little more than mention his name. PWilkinson (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this article should be not be deleted until reviewed by a Farsi speaker an/or expert in Islamic history. I added his name in Farsi and search shows up various sources confirming his existence and people discussing him in articles and books, but it's beyond my capability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually I did WP:AGF when I kept asking the creator of the article to improve his article and even introduced him to pages for policies and other important Wikipedia guideline pages so it is easier for the editor to save his article if it stands at all both at User talk:Mehdi ghaed and Talk:Mulla Hamzah Gilani. It was only after the creator kept arguing and removing (even maintenance) templates without any improvement or a single edit that the article was up for AfD because even the creator was unable to or not willing to edit the article to make it encyclopedic. Pixarh (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: i think that some references such as Corbin namely(Henry Corbin and Sayyed Jalāl-al-Din Āštiāni, eds., Anthologie des philosophes iraniens depuis le XVIIe siècle jusqu’à nos jours/Montaḵabāt-i az āṯār-e ḥokamāʾ-e elāhi-e Irān az ʿaṣr-e Mir Dāmād o Mir Fendereski tā zamān-e ḥāżer, 4 vols., Paris and Tehran) is notable as iranica encyclopedia refere to it alsohere..but about my edit versus Pixarh, it is clear that first he claimed the person is contemporary while i told him this claim is not true. besides he unfortunately tagged my page but according to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing he does not understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. of course this edition by him is not intentional. however i try to reach a consensus but this user Does not engage in consensus building and at the same time try to report the page for deletion.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment:What are you talking about? Your references were redirecting back to the article itself and you were not even accepting it. None of us editors have anything against you please I told you before not to take this personally. You were given enough time to improve the article, you chose not to so do not blame other editors for that. I have only been trying to push you improve your article throughout my conversations and encouraging you for that by sending you links of helpful pages at your talk page so where is this "disruptive" coming from? Pixarh (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative transliterations? Can any Farsi speakers suggest alternative transliterations that might lead to sources in Germanic or Romance languages other than English? As it now stands, the article is woefully inadequate and may need to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I relisted last week, hoping that another editor's plea for a Farsi speaker (3 weeks ago) would happen. Hasn't occurred. The article's creator seems unwilling to put any work in on improving the article. Searches returned nothing to show they meet notability criteria, and the current article doesn't appear to state any claim to notability. He was a philosopher and a pupil of a famous philosopher. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - I, as creator of the article, mentioned some notable sources such Corbin.This person also could encompass "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I think these condition satified by writing the book Hekmat sadeqiyyah which Corbin also referred to it.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Note: !vote struck, because you are only allowed to vote once. You may, of course, comment any number of times, so I have left that be. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep. It is well known that historical topics, especially those where the literature tends to be written in languages other than English, are under-represented in Wikipedia. Thus, I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. Appears to be cited in History Of Islamic Philosophy, but the digitized text is hard to work with (so, again, benefit of the doubt). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the same person as Hamza Gilani from Wikishia. Other wikis don't meet our WP:RS requirements, but that may be a jumping-off point for further research -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 29 November 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 (NAC) On the balance, the arguments that this author is notable due to the reviews of her books are convincing; in particular, the clause of WP:AUTHOR which states "The person's work (or works) [...] has won significant critical attention." Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dena Hankins[edit]

Dena Hankins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't find a single reliable source about her in either print or online media, including no notable reviews of her books. Fails both WP:AUTHOR and most importantly WP:GNG. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Books and News found some links but no better notability and improvement yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Publishers Weekly reviews are deemed notable/reliable, here are two of them on her books: [25] on Blue Water Dreams- "Unnecessary angst and frustratingly poor communication between principal characters mar Hankins’s otherwise exciting debut... This debut shows promise; if only Hankins had given her fascinating characters more opportunities to take pleasure in each other’s company.", which was also long-listed for Lambda Literary Awards for transgender fiction[26], and [27] on Heart of the Lilikoi - "In constructing artificial-sounding dialogues about Hawaiian independence, green technology, and nonbinary gender, Hankins borders on the preachy, but the core romantic story is strong and satisfying.", note, i am not saying these make Hankins notable (thus no 'keep' by me), just that there are notable review of her books. oh, i just found another notable review, this time from the American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table[28] - "It is refreshing to read a love story where there is no jealous triangle ... It may appeal to romance readers who are willing to try something a little different. It may also find a readership among trans men for the ways it affirms their sexuality and desirability." so it now getting very close to a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What policy states Publishers Weekly reviews are deemed significant enough to fulfill WP:AUTHOR? Or American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table reviews? Also note Blue Water Dreams DID NOT win the Lambda award, and in any case that would be a case for an article on the book, not the author. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She's been reviewed in Publisher's weekly and ALA, as Coolabahapple points out. I can't believe this article was nominated at all! For those who can't be bothered to do WP:BEFORE, I'm adding the relevant links to her article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not her, one of her books. And not the ALA, rather the American Library Association’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Round Table. Per above, what notability guideline states PW and ALAGLBTRT (a mouthful, yes!) satisfy criteria #4 of WP:AUTHOR? By the way, it states "significant critical attention" - which I (and most other editors) take it to mean more than 1 marginal review {note one novel was reviewed by PW and the other by ALAGLBTRT}. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• who has said criterion 4? Criterion 3. - "such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." PW is independent of the subject and has reviewed the books, ditto alaglbtrt.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Emphasis on multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Megalibrarygirl.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while it's nice to be aware of WP:BEFORE, it's also nice to be aware that appropriate guideline is WP:NAUTHOR, not WP:NBOOK, which is the argument being used by those !voting keep. Not certain either of the books passes the latter, but the author certainly does not meet ANY of the 4 criteria of the former. Searches show this author clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, as I've stated repeatedly above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable writer of lesbian fiction, with book reviews, interviews and mentions in several independent sources. Notable does not mean mainstream. Martinogk (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, i would like to clarify and emphasise that i have not recommended keep on this afd, rather that reviews from PW and ALAGLBTRT are okay to be used towards notability, not that the reviews make the subject notable as there are not enough. i suggest more is required.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Megalibrarygirl--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 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. joe decker^talk 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Tzu-yung[edit]

Hung Tzu-yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Taiwanese politician, article was translated from Chinese Wiki. The new version doesn't address any of the voiced concerns from the previous AfD discussion, especially WP:NOTINHERITED and the non-notability of mere candidacies per WP:POLITICIAN. The article is also entirely unsourced (WP:V) and reads like a campaign leaflet (WP:NPOV). Especially pre-election, Wikipedia should not be misused as free publicity platform. As I am not sure, how similar this version is from the previously deleted one, I am initiating a full AfD nomination rather than a speedy. GermanJoe (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP should be tagged with ((subst:prod blp)), according to the documentation for ((BLP unsourced)). – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did PROD the article first (as non-notable though), but it was overwritten 1 minute later - I should have mentioned that. GermanJoe (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL/WP:1E. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 25 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been requested to provide a more detailed close. Basically, opinion was running 2:1 in favor of delete. Of the various sources proposed by those arguing to keep, none seem to have been accepted by the other side as WP:RS, and there aren't any convincing policy-based arguments on the keep side which would justify going against the majority opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One (The Ra Material)[edit]

The Law of One (The Ra Material) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Metaphysical/Occult topic with insufficient support from reliable secondary sources. Possibly the individual authors involved with this work are notable, however this work does not seem to have attracted any attention from any trustworthy source. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic fringe. Plenty of discussion of the book within the very narrow group of people who think that channeling messages from aliens is a thing. There is no evidence of any widespread interest. --ℕ ℱ 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In the 3rd AFD discussion one editor commented "At the second AfD, the article was kept after several of us found sufficient reliable sources to indicate notability" - could somebody indicate what these sources may have been? I've not been able to identify anything that resembles a reliable secondary source, but it's possible that I have overlooked something significant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjects related to this article have gone through the ringer here at Wikipedia, but claims that it passes WP:NFRINGE have not been convincing. Basically, the only sources which discuss this book and the associated claimed channeled entity are books that take the claim seriously. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of books that are self-published about claims "discovered" during channeling sessions, and there are many instances of New Age true believers writing various supportive (and sometimes less-than-supportive when they don't think a particular channeled work is relevant) text about a particular claim. WP:FRIND is intended to ask for people who aren't in the same fringe community (and Kinney, for example, clearly is). We don't need a skeptical source, necessarily, just something WP:MAINSTREAM like a media piece, a historian, or an academic who thinks the particular fringe idea (or channeled entity in this case) is noteworthy beyond the sensationalism. Why Ra has remained in Wikipedia in spite of this clear necessity for truly independent sources is something I still don't understand. jps (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's scraped through many previous AFDs by the skin of its teeth (one of which I closed as a procedural keep), under many variant article names, so the sources on the article at present can reasonably be presumed to be what there is, and it's not really enough - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's nonsensical crap, but it's nonsensical crap that has gained itself some airtime. It's well within WP's role to describe popular delusions and the madness of crowds, without having to begin believing it ourselves. There is value in giving a sourced, rational and objective description of what this piece of hokum is.

I'd actually like to see more of this substantial material restored, to give better context. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what source calls it "hokum"? That's the challenge. People that don't accord any credence to channeling messages from aliens rarely waste their time discussing books that do. That's why this is non-notable fringe and not mainstream philosophy. --ℕ ℱ 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - i'd like to be able to vote keep, as this is the sort of fringe stuff that should be on en.wikipedia. However, the sources for this book make it seem un-notable, and reasonably subject to deletion. Are there any reviews or discussion of it anywhere else? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the article history you'll see that in the past it has been considerably bigger, and with more sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a useful rule of thumb, I find that AFDs can usually be deleted if we can find a single (preferably two) scholarly sources which significantly cover this subject. I don't think Gnosis magazine would count, it's way too in the occult bubble to be considered a reliable source. Perhaps you've seen something a bit more mainstream in your review of this article's history? If so, could you provide links here? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding on "reliable source" is not correct; wP:RS. Most probably you're intermixing reliability with neutrality, or with being scholarly; see WP:BIASED. A reliable source doesn't need to be neutral; neutrality is achieved by editors by combining different sources (many of them can be biased) while reporting facts in the article. Logos (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is indeed the applicable policy here. I do not think Gnosis would count as a reliable source - not because of it's fringe bias but because of it's lack of a strong editorial policy, or any kind of academic review. We could use this source to flesh-out details of the article but we cannot use this source to attest to the subject's importance. So do we have any actual reliable secondary sources which attest to this subject's importance? --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be exact WP:RS is a guideline. To bring it into play there are more foundational issue to attend to first (neutrality principally in this case). In any case yes, an article in Gnosis by the guy who both owns and edits it is would not be reliable anyway, even if it weren't such crap. It counts as a fringe WP:SPS Alexbrn (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "full" version of this article is something like this: [29]

That included one of the refs that I see as just the sort of thing we need here (no idea why it was removed), Stephen Tyman's A Fool's Phenomenology. It fits this particular tale into a taxonomy of such things: which identifiable and recurring themes it makes use of, the archetypes it refers to. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: that Tyman source actually looks promising. Have you got it? How in-depth is its coverage? Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clue as to Tyman's relationship to the topic: "Never has there been a greater need for a clear, accessible overview of the possibilities and pitfalls of spiritual seeking. Carla L. Rueckert has masterfully provided just such an overview. As the original channel of the Law of One series, Rueckert has fashioned a text that is profound while being also astonishingly lucid. She delves into many issues that have baffled every serious inquirer, and manages to put them on a footing that shows the possibility of a real way forward. As a spiritual manual, this work is simply unmatched. I would recommend it without qualification to any earnest seeker. —Stephen Tyman, PhD, author of A Fool’s Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The library got it for me. Tyman is clearly "new age" in that they're prepared to accept the existence of things beyond current knowledge, and thus accept a value in seeking them. However they're not gushingly gullible over it. Louie seems to think that anything beyond absolutist atheism is unacceptable to WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyman proofreads Carla Reuckert's manuscripts [30], writes gushy book jacket blurbs for her, [31] and appears with her as a guest speaker at "Contact with the Galactic Confederation, the RA Material, etc. Living the Law of One: A Seminar Sponsored by L/L Research and Bring4th.org" [32]. Do I require atheist sources? No. Someone without a clear conflict of interest would be nice, though. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are important points. Ridiculous to rely on this as an example of independent commentary in the circumstances. It is not evidence of widespread, non-fringe interest. --ℕ ℱ 13:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LEt me remind y'all that tyman is not a wp editor, so where does that COI joke come from? See WP:BIASED instead. Logos (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley:As Alexbrn pointed out WP:RS is not a policy. And you seem to have incomplete and inaccurate perceptions about Gnosis, maybe due to the comments on fringe noticeboard. I would recommend you to dig yourself. "GNOSIS's founder, publisher, and editor in chief was Jay Kinney, Its editor was Richard Smoley". Although Kinney's education is not so clear, Smoley's background seems adequate to me for these type of areas. Logos (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even while Smoley was an editor, Kinney remained as "editor in chief" - and owner. Alexbrn (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although Kinney's education is not clear, he definitely must have quite an extensive expertise on religious and spiritual traditions: [33]. Logos (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the education/expertise of the publisher or the author is germane to this discussion. My comments were directed towards Gnosis (the publication) which does not seem to be a serious academic or technical journal - the kind of thing which would clearly attest to this subject's importance. The only reason we are discussing Gnosis and it's staff is that this appears to be the best source we have for the article. If I could draw an analogy, citing Gnosis is rather like citing a fanzine as a source. The problem is not the inherent bias or lack of expertise in the subject but that inclusion in such a publication is not a good indication of notability. Fanzine publications often dwell in great detail on topics that are not notable outside of a fan community. Do you think we might be able to find a more mainstream source that can establish this subject's importance? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need "serious academic", "technical journal", or "scholarly sources" to attest the notability of these books. Do you see any of these kind of sources in The Day After Roswell? You're making too much generalizations and wrong assumptions, not to mention misinterpretations of key policies and guidelines. Gnosis was not a fanzine publication. Logos (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... Yes we do. Other stuff exists (and ought to be deleted). So what? DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the existing ones (included or not included at the moment), all the sources in this old archive are reliable (in accordance with the definition in WP:RS) and establishes notability: [34]. Logos (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  How is Laura Knight-Jadczyk (whose own article was deleted) a reliable source on anything? Can you show RS status and how these are evidence of noteworthiness for each of the authors you are claiming here? Because this isn't showing it - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources cited by wikipedia articles, whose authors/writers do not have an article in wikipedia. Just like verifiability does not mean truth, "reliable source" also does not imply a neutral, scholar or technical source. What you understand from "reliable source" does not seem correct. Questionable sources WP:QUESTIONED are in the threshold, not WP:BIASed sources. Logos (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely not an answer to the question. That's a long list of apparently really terrible, low-quality sources. None of these appear to evidence notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly the only available answer to your remark about "Laura Knight-Jadczyk", and you keep bringing the terminology/notion, which wp policies and guidelines do not include. Logos (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logos, the reason (and only reason) why this article keeps getting nominated for deletion is because none of the sources meet our standards of a reliable secondary source. The standards of WP:N and WP:RS apply here. It is possible to produce an excellent article about a very fringe topic if we can find high quality sources. In this case we have not found anything better than some minor mentions and a review in an self-published occult journal (Gnosis). All we'd need to establish notability is show some significant mainstream attention to this topic. It seems that nobody (other than you) seems to think that this is an important subject.--Salimfadhley (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources/article may not meet "your standards", but it meets wp's policies and guidelines. To be clear; while policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts WP:POL. "Anti-fringe task force" may repetitively try to manipulate some irrelevant so called "best practices" contained by WP:FRINGE to overrule other guidelines and even policies, but that doesn't change the whole scope and context. It's like the difference between the law and the enforcement. And it seems you're also having hard time to see other keep votes here. Logos (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there are reliable sources to prove it deserves an article, please cite them, because the ones we have shows only that it exists (like lots of things), not that it deserves its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is my understanding that this book purports to be a collection of transcripts from someone's channeling of Ra. Please let me know if anyone here believes differently, but this is clearly a hoax. Are there any reliable sources stating that this is a hoax or a figment of someone's imagination? - Location (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no difference, other than their relative popularity, between this and the Book of Mormon or Xenu. All three are fabrications, but as fabrications they have a recorded existence. WP doesn't publish hoaxes, but it does record them. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely the point. Both of those have been skeptically discussed in countless reliable sources outside of the world view. The level of popularity isn't the reason why those are notable and these aren't. But it means they are much more likely to have been written about widely by people who are happy to point out what is hokum. You can't write a balanced article if the only people writing about hokum are people who believe in it. In the absence of that wider commentary, to even attempt to rationally balance it is WP:OR. Fringe subjects make bad wikipedia articles precisely because ALL the available sources are wide-eyed and credulous --ℕ ℱ 02:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; If book of mormon and xenu were skeptically discussed in countless reliable sources, that's an additional quality, but not required in WP. WP:FRINGE/WP:FRIND is not needed to be satisfied for books. It's the same as the difference between "roswell (ufo incident)" and "the day after roswell". Logos (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary it is the very thing that demonstrates that they have transcended the narrow fringe sphere of interest and show a widespread interest in the details of each which is required to meet basic notability guidelines. That has clearly not been demonstrated by the book currently under consideration. --ℕ ℱ 13:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears this obscure book article has lingered on WP for quite some time as a semi-stub on the basis of references that are passing mentions of the book rather than works specifically about the book, or sources that are sufficiently comprehensive but hopelessly entrenched within the fringe bubble. It's time to trim it back to an entry at List of modern channelled texts until such time as reliable WP:FRIND sources arise that discuss the book in an in-depth and serious manner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE/WP:FRIND does not apply here. Logos (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:FRINGE is an invention that many editors have been trying to stick to. Even though Fringe theory does not satisfy notability criteria of wp, those type of editors just do not care; they radically think that it has to stay in wikipedia as an article to back up WP:FRINGE. We can't censor books in wikipedia just because they do not satisfy a misinterpreted "guideline" the misinterpreted version of a guideline. Let's get back to the basics;

1-Trivial coverage of a topic/book in independent, reliable, third-party sources warrants a stub in wikipedia.

2-For a topic to be able to grow past a stub/summary, there should be some extended non-trivial coverage in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

3-For neutrality, there should be some critical commentary about the topic in at least 1 independent, reliable, third-party source.

So, the law of one article/books satisfies clause 1 definitely; there are plenty of sources mentioning the law of one books briefly (i.e. trivial coverage). It doesn't matter whether those are new-agey, spiritualist, or "woo-woo" sources; the only prerequisite is "independent, reliable, third-party". Clause 2 is also satisfied by Kinney's article about the law of one books in Gnosis magazine. Some editors may argue that it's not enough. Then there are below sources;

-Klimo, Jon (1987). Channeling: Investigations on Receiving Information from Paranormal Sources. North Atlantic Books. p. 203. ISBN 9781556432484.

-Wicherink, Jan (2008). "The law of One" (PDF). Souls of Distortion Awakening: A convergence of science and spirituality. Piramidions. pp. 193–197. ISBN 978-90-813047-2-6.

-Hastings, Arthur. With the Tongues of Men and Angels: A Study of Channelingl. Holt Rinehart and Winston (March 1991). p. 60. ISBN 9780030471643.

-Andrew Ross (1991). Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits. Verso. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-86091-567-6. Retrieved 6 February 2013.

Kinney's article contains some critics, therefore clause 3 is also satisfied. Finally, nearly all of the content in the law of one article are from mainly Kinney's article/commentary in Gnosis magazie. So, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH is also not violated. Logos (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually, we can "censor books in wikipedia just because they do not satisfy" an actual guideline. The interpretation of guidelines is up to the community. Of course it is still possible to go overboard and "misinterpret" guidelines, but it's always going to be difficult to be sure that you are the only person who has the "correct" interpretation. At the end of the day, guidelines are just that, guidelines on which to base case-by-case debate on fitness for inclusion. I am "inclusionist" in the "mergist" sense, and I see no harm in keeping entries even for the most crappy of books, the "guideline" part is about not blowing their notability out of proportion. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the wrong expression above. Logos (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Logos, I see you have a WP:COI. Please tread easy and let the community figure it out. If you have a personal involvement with L/L Research, I suggest you may advise on talkpages, but you should avoid getting into editing disputes. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any COI other than personal interest in the law of one books. Knowing the exact date of Maccarthy's joining to llresearch does not mean that I have a personal involvement with them. Contact a checkuser if you have any doubt. All these "correct" information are on internet; why don't you visit llresearch and find the correct information before inserting the incorrect WP:OR pieces into the article repetitively. Logos (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so you don't have a "COI" technically. Sure, you are welcome to fix mistakes. My point is that you are an editor with an agenda. No checkuser is needed for this observation, a look at your user page and edit history is more than enough. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge -- it's just a 1980s ancient astronaut book. No big deal, don't create a bureaucratic issue for it. We don't need it, but it's nice to have it because it will assist the research of people looking into 1980s New Age stuff. Either keep it around as a short factual entry, or merge it into a short paragraph in some larger ancient astronauts article. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noted Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption under "see also". This is a joke church founded by John Oliver for his show, to make the point that it is ridiculously easy to be recognized as a church in the US. There is no apparent relation to the topic at hand, but the fact that some random joke by a popular satirist gets a lengthy article which exists apparently uncontested for WP:NOTE to me shows the persisting systemic bias on Wikipedia: sure, I get it, Oliver's "church" is a joke, and therefore "smart", so we like it and love to keep articles about it; Rueckert's chanelling, otoh, is meant seriously, and thus (gasp) "stupid", and so we are going to give it a hard time just to signal to each other that we are "smart". Never mind that one topic is an off-hand joke made on TV one week, while the other is an ongoing publication effort sustained for 30 years, on thousands of pages, sold commercially and reviewed in the relevant (i.e. "New Agey") literature. As long as Wikipedians keep getting their tribal affiliations mixed up with their notability judgements, the system will be broken. But apparently it is very, very diffiult even for people of above-average intelligence to perform rational cogitation detached from one's social conditioning and tribal loyalties. I am just saying. Look, I realize there is no "real value" in this channeled stuff, but it is part of an entire subculture which was very much alive during the entire second half of the 20th century, so there can hardly be any debate on "notability" per se. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But why are there so few sources that aren't in the "New Agey" literature in comparison to other channeled literature (e.g. Ramtha)? jps (talk) 11:55, 19 November 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 redirect to Susan Anderson (disambiguation). There are two authors named Susan Anderson/Andersen, so I am redirecting this to the disambig page. Additionally, AFD is not the proper venue for a simple housekeeping process. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Anderson (author)[edit]

Susan Anderson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I used the wrong protocol for re-titling an article. This page needs to be removed so I can start over. The original article is here: Susan Anderson (psychotherapist). Thanks. Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:42, 17 November 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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Jermay[edit]

Luke Jermay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Certainly speedy and PROD material as it currently is and the best my searches found was this, this and this and I could continue searching but this case seems obvious. It's also worth noting that one of the News links seems to confirm he was a consultant for The Mentalist although he's not mentioned at IMDb but that's certainly not enough to save this article (which has existed since January 2007 with changes here and there, mostly from SPAs, and nothing better). Pinging past user Joe Decker and also Rms125a@hotmail.com, Onel5969 and DGG who may be interested to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The WorldCat entry for The Mentalist [35] says "Features: Mentalism, a subliminal art (featurette gallery with real-life mentalist Luke Jermay" which verifies that part. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copy edit. The subject passes WP:BASIC. Many sources were quite easily found by simply using the news link in the ((Find sources AFD)) template atop this discussion. @SwisterTwister: I suggest that you please refine your search methods to include this search. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[12], ^[13], ^[14], ^[15], ^[16], ^[17]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple independent sources establish notability. In addition to those listed by North America1000, I also found the following sources: ^[18], ^[19], ^[20] Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the references found by the above 3 editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 17 November 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 delete (A5) by Jinian (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squad (group)[edit]

Squad (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BELONGS ON WIKTIONARY Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And is already on Wiktionary, so speedy delete per template. LjL (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  19:43, 17 November 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. joe decker^talk 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Amalou[edit]

J. K. Amalou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a film director and screenwriter, making absolutely no actual claim of notability for either of those things. The entire article literally consists of a single sentence which just states that he exists, and no reliable source coverage has been shown here, either — the only source in the entire article is an interview on a non-notable writer's personal blog. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original author needs to write more if it's to stay. Right now it's nothing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not pass WP:FILMMAKER, and searches do not show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 25 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry (disambiguation)[edit]

Katy Perry (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Combined dab that should not be combined. When split into two dabs: 1. Katy Perry is WP:TWODABS failure, 2. "Katy Hudson & Kate Hudson" is OK so this could be moved there rather than deleted (without leaving redirect). Two hatnotes at primarytopic should suffice. Widefox; talk 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I mentioned on the talk page, the closest thing to a viable combination would be a "Katy Hudson" DAB, but that fails WP:TWODABS since Katy Perry is the primary topic (where it redirects) and the album is located at Katy Hudson (album) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? how about: Widefox; talk 20:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom suggested change to move (updated nom with suggested move & naming) - move to Katy Hudson (disambiguation) would have 3 entries:

Katy Hudson (born 1984) is an American musician with the stage name Katy Perry.

Katy Hudson or Kate Hudson may also refer to:

• Katy Hudson (album), a 2001 eponymous album by the artist who subsequently adopted the stage name Katy Perry
• Kate Hudson (born 1979), American actress
• Kate Hudson (activist) (born 1958), British activist

See also

• Katie Perry (born 1980), English-born Australian fashion designer

Widefox; talk 20:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That wouldn't really work since "Kate Hudson", "Katy Hudson", "Katie Perry" are three separate terms. The first two both fail WP:TWODABS (one primary topic and one other topic) while the other is a sole topic. Doesn't really work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely combine spelling variants etc. on dabs, including human names. Depends on closeness of "Kate" and "Katy", ping User:PamD, User:Xezbeth. (the "Katie Perry" See also item is really secondary and could be dropped, but as there's primary and secondary ambiguity here with the name of both primary topics, this seems prudent to include the secondary in that See also way) Widefox; talk 09:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, what a mess of a disambiguation. These are completely different names that shouldn't be disambiguated together. The hatnotes that were in place before this was created is the best solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. WP:HAT states that "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page." Which I am trying to achieve with this disambiguation page. Note that the primary topic of Katy Hudson is the Katy Perry article. This does not meet WP:TWODABS, since similarly named articles, like the ones in the See also section of the disambiguation page, are plausible search terms. sst✈^discuss 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't do "A and B" dab pages, only "A and As" and the like. There are two Katies and two Kates. Neither pair warrants a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "the like" is quite a list - we do much more than plurals - including (but not limited to) spelling variants, spelling similarity, abbreviations, similarity of sound, appearance of characters/symbols, synonyms, combining dabs based on size. Widefox; talk 09:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: better done by hatnotes. PamD 09:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This disambiguation page was intended to be a bold solution to article naming issues. I still disagree with placing multiple hatnotes at the top of articles, but consensus seems to favor doing so. Therefore, you may as well delete this page. sst✈^discuss 09:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a dab that's focussed on the primary topic article this is a IAR solution, but there's no reason to have that at the expense of contorting (by conflating independent terms) normal disambiguation as a whole. (there's a question for you Pam above) Widefox; talk 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because I can't find any obvious evidence that anyone has actually ever referred to Kate Hudson as Katy Hudson. The names aren't even homophones. The basis for the ambiguity is non-existent - the single letter of difference is quite sufficient to distinguish, even if it's just one letter. Allowing all possible single-letter differences to creep into disambiguation is a slippery slope into a giant mess, let's just not do that any more than absolutely necessary. In this case, of a less common name, it's not necessary at all. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not about ambiguity of each item, it's just a practical one about combining terms on a dab.

The question that I posed above: is this a case of variant forms of names per WP:DPAGE "Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith." (Dick, Richard etc). I'm thought it was, but I defer to others. I'm guessing PamD and Xezbeth both think not? So it appears there's no consensus for it (so far). Widefox; talk 11:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the prerequisite there. The reason we put all the various Fred Smiths on the same page is that it's actually common for people to refer to Frederick Smiths as Fred Smiths, so when looking for "Fred Smith", the reader might easily be looking for a person whose proper name is Frederick. Are the forms Kate and Katy supposed to be as interchangeable? I doubt it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my world yes, but I'm not much of a RS! But seriously...lets check that gut feeling... per Kate "It is sometimes a short form of Katherine" and Katy "Katy, a short form of the name Katherine" so yes there's WP ambiguity and a overwhelming reason to combine. I don't know about "prerequisite" but synonyms of Katherine is quite clear, although I defer to others for how we actually handle those two and similar. WP ambiguity is the reason we disambiguate. Is that a persuasive case User:PamD User:Xezbeth ? Widefox; talk 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two given names are similar enough to warrant a distinguish hatnote, though I wouldn't consider them ambiguous just because they're derived from the same name. I also don't think two separate hatnotes create much clutter; 4 or more is where it starts getting silly. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's... deductive, not inductive? If we went down that route, we could also say Fred/erick is only because it's a clear-cut derivation (contraction), and Kate is not a clear-cut derivation of Katy, or vice versa. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:37, 21 November 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 (NAC) Substantial improvements have been made during this AfD, which have been recognized in the later !votes, allowing a clear "keep" outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kardash[edit]

Mary Kardash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable primarily as a school board trustee, and as a non-winning candidate for election to higher office. Neither of these is a claim that satisfies WP:NPOL, and the lack of sourcing vitiates a WP:GNG claim as well. In truth, I would have speedied or prodded this — except that it's somehow survived like this since 2005. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Kind of surprising it's survived for 10 years without any sources. Fails GNG and NPOL pretty clearly. I would think this qualifies for A7 speedy delete. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsidering after all the work done on the article by Bondegezou. Almost everything is cited now, many to books or articles, and the article is fairly substantial. I think this sounds like it would meet the notability guidelines now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google Books throws up some relevant stuff, e.g. [36] (calls her "prominent") and mentioned in [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42]. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned in" one or more sources is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG, if those mentions are all just glancing namechecks of her existence. She has to be substantively a significant subject of the source for it to count — which doesn't mean the entire book has to be a biography of her, but it does mean there has to be a lot more than just a passing reference to her mere existence. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links I gave (and those are only what I found on a quick search) and I think in the way they talk about this person, they demonstrate notability. People who did notable things in the 1970s are at a disadvantage compared to people doing notable things today because it's harder to find the material about them, but if someone is repeatedly turning up in so many books, it looks to me like they pass WP:GNG. The article certainly needs work because there's more in those sources than in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have direct access to four databases of historical Canadian newspaper coverage that go back that far or farther, and she just generates fairly trivial passing mentions, not substantive coverage, in all of those too. And nothing in the article suggests that she ever did anything that would be expected to get even a contemporary figure into an encyclopedia, either — even a school board trustee in the 2010s, who Googles way more easily and doesn't at all require accessing databases of historical media coverage, still doesn't get an article just for being a school board trustee, nor does an unelected political candidate get an article just for being an unelected political candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I'll try to put more work into it and would appreciate any help from those databases. Ta. Bondegezou (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help isn't going to be provided by any of those databases — as I already noted, I've already run her through all four of them, and she generates just trivial namechecks of her existence in coverage of other topics, not substantive coverage of anything that would constitute a notability claim in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, do a search for "Mary Kardash" + "communist" in Google Books and there's pages and pages of stuff. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. These links are pretty much the definition of trivial mentions. And these are books exactly about her area, so if she was notable I would expect she'd be discussed more in them. I'm just not sure how we can write a reliably sourced article with only a few sentences in various books (not to mention some of these suffer from reliability problems). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar search throws up plenty too. She seems sufficiently discussed to me. Several mentions describe her as "prominent". She wasn't just any school board trustee. She was a significant Canadian communist, as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Bearcat makes a good argument regarding the overall non-significance of this subject.ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW, I've done some work expanding the article. If the AfD ends in a delete decision, please merge content into William Kardash. Bondegezou (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, while trivial mentions aren't useful for writing an article if there are only one or two available, mounds and mounds of trivial mentions add up to "depth of coverage" and indicate notability. Considering that she's a woman in the early 20th century, that's a lot of coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing mounds and mounds though, I'm only seeing a handful. And they all say pretty much the same thing: that she was a communist in the 20th century. Agree that this is a borderline case so I'd definitely reconsider if more sourcing is presented. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, different sources say different things: they don't all say the same thing. I've added article content now about her youth, activity in the 1940s, marriage, school board elections, activity as an educational campaigner, controversy around Ukrainian history views, later activity, and the institution named after her. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Took another look, you've done some good work and I'm not sure this should be deleted. I'm withdrawing my !vote for now. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -There are enough reliable sources listed to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Bondegezou. Great job with the article! Martinogk (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not only did Bondegezou find sources that establishes notability they've actually added them! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 04:35, 28 November 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. per SK1 - I'm wrapping this up as it's becoming long and tiresome for everyone and myself, I'm closing on the fact sources were provided, As I said below I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't gonna be amazing but sources need to be better than just mentions but I know in a few days/weeks time this'll be closed as Keep so I'm wrapping it up now, Meh I guess mentions are better than nothing (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raidió Fáilte[edit]

Raidió Fáilte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station. Little WP:RS coverage found even though it has been around for several years. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know whether we are looking up the same station, User:Davey2010 and User:Ww2censor? Here are a number of reliable sources:
  • The Economist
  • Radio Survivor
  • The Atlantic
  • Belfast Telegraph

Clear keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of those sources you provided make more than a passing mention that the station exists, except for the RadioSurvivor one which is actually based, word for word, on this Ofcom report whose quote was extracted from the radio stations own annual report (see page 11). So I don't see any significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. ww2censor (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor is bang on - They're all just mentions ... Don't get me wrong I don't expect sources on community stations to be amazing but I do expect them to be a little bit better than just random mentions, As an aside after the recent controversy with The Atlantic I'd rather not use them anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ww2censor That just isn't true. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. You said "I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station" which is evidently wrong. The other articles cover the station in sufficient detail. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Davey2010. For a small community station the sources are excellent. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. In your nom you say "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". I believe the nomination is misleading and should be withdrawn on that basis. Regarding The Atlantic how interesting and convenient you have unilaterally decided you'd "rather not used them anyway". Unfortunately that is not how it works. If you believe The Atlantic is not a reliable source in the context of community radio you should take that to WP:RS/N. If the reason you'd "rather not" use the Atlantic is because of their story about the gender gap and misogyny on Wikipedia, a very important story irrespective of minor errors, then you are being rather WP:POINTy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are much smaller stations than this and they all have better sourcing and so this should too, There's nothing misleading about this nomination and it's not going to be withdrawn not unless you or someone else can provide better sources than those provided, I stated "as an aide" and there's a big difference between "I'd rather not use them" and "They're not being used end of" (What I'm trying to say is I don't think they should be used but I'd obviously not stop anyone from adding it) .... You do realize nitpicking at everything here won't achieve your desired outcome .... As I said unless someone comes up with better sources than I'm afraid this AFD's heading one way. –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is acceptable in my view. Do you have any reason at all you feel The Atlantic cannot be used? I think what is misleading is that you stated in the nom that "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". How could this be true? AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, you disagree, so let's be precise.The Atlantic while generally a good source, all this link says about the radio station is: Belfast's eclectic indie Raidio Failte have been broadcasting entirely in Irish for several years. So, all its says is that the station exists. I've already commented on why the Radio Survivor is not a good source in this instance. The Belfast Telegraph only says they were going to interview Ian Paisley, while The Economist states the station broadcasts over the internet and that some protestants listen to it. The WP:POINT is that there is no significant coverage to be seen. Provide some and I'll be happy to change me opinion because I never suggested that WP:IDONTLIKEIT,. Surely you can do better then that? ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AfD about a community radio station. Once again: British regulator OFCOM gives out very few broadcast licenses, so on its own that should make the stations notable. And the same editor always starts the discussion with exactly the same line, and in the majority of cases it is not accurate. The fact is that these stations are extremely local and have a local audience, so there is no need for them to have notability outside of the area where they broadcast. So local media coverage should be more than sufficient to show notability. Has a OFCOM license, is mentioned in the local media as being a local radio station - should mean that it is notable. If it has a mention in The Atlantic, this should be more than sufficient. Keep. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah as we've discussed a million and one times no one gives a flying toss about Ofcom - It doesn't prove notability despite what you or the essay (which isn't policy!) states, Mentions as you've been repeatedly told aren't good enough either, As I've said I'm more than happy to withdraw these AFDs if one can prove it's an actual notable station... –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is pretty clear that it is virtually impossible to "prove" to you a station is notable when you reject coverage in the international press. AusLondonder (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article of its own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've began to remove redlinked/deleted articles on the table, As it stands the table is useless information wise (There's not much info on the table so redirecting IMHO is pointless and seeing as half of my nominated radio stations have been deleted it makes sense to just delete the lot instead of deleting 98% and perhaps redirecting 2% of the stations :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One question I have: Why did User:Davey2010 state "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else" when I, with one Google search, found The Economist, The Atlantic and the Belfast Telegraph? AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as a radio station can be reliably sourced as existing, rather than relying exclusively on its own self-published web presence for verification, then per WP:NMEDIA the station does not need to make any further claim of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station. The volume of sourcing does not need to be spectacular — the station's existence just needs to be properly verifiable in at least one or two sources independent of its own self-published web presence. The volume of sourcing demanded by the nominator is in fact impossible for somewhere between 95 and 99 per cent of all media outlets to ever actually meet — because most of our sources for Wikipedia content are media outlets, the nominator's impossibly high sourcing expectations would put the notability of nearly all media outlets on a direct collision course with those same references' reluctance to offer the same volume of neutral and in-depth coverage to their own competition that we would demand in, say, a WP:BLP of a person. So the nominator does not get to dismiss Ofcom as irrelevant — the existence of a license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC in the US, CRTC in Canada, Ofcom in the UK, etc.) is the main notability standard that a radio station has to meet. And the Ofcom license is in and of itself a legitimate source, to boot — it is, for example, the only possible source for many important technical details, such as a station's ERP and HAAT statistics, that are required details in a radio station's article. Accordingly, once its existence as an Ofcom-licensed radio station can be properly verified in reliable sources separately from the station's own webpage, a radio station needs to make no further claim of notability beyond that fact. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. what Bearcat said. I hope all AfDs for currently broadcasting British community radio stations are rejected - as they all meet this standard. JMWt (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring comment removed by Davey2010) AusLondonder (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)It's extraordinary someone would devote so much time to trying to gut coverage of community radio rather than improving anything. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I hadn't removed your comment so not sure what happened there (I'm assuming edit conflict?), I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't going to be amazing but all community stations I've come across have somewhat better sources (even the unknown ones) which is why they're not here, I would rather withdraw but all articles here need better sources, –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat - I don't expect sourcing to be amazing but they need to be somewhat better than just mentions, Ofcom doesn't prove notability and NMEDIA's not a policy, It's like saying articles on companies should be kept because they're registered on the UK Companies House register ....., As I said all sources above are just mentions and being registered with Ofcom isn't a pass to an article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JMWt - They meet no standard whatsoever. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 17 November 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. joe decker^talk 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melting Rain[edit]

Melting Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a band whose only substantive claims of notability are winning a local talent competition and having a member who's the son of a notable politician. These are not claims of notability that pass WP:NMUSIC, and the referencing here is not good enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu — two of the three footnotes are to invalid WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and the only reliable source is covering them in the context of the local talent competition. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability and sourceability actually improve. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Another local but non-notable band at this time, clearly no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Should recreate, if topic does become notable in the future.Logicequalslogical (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 25 November 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. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren V. Wood[edit]

Lauren V. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. She is one of many who, according to the article, is known for studies of vaccines. This alone is not enough for an article. rayukk | talk 16:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  18:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]