The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP of a recently deceased person that has almost zero encyclopedically relevant content, apart from an infobox. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ACTOR. There's some coverage in Hungarian [1] following the subject's death after a long illness in 2017, but this fact is not even reflected in the article. Coverage is of tribute style and I don't believe that it amounts to encyclopedia notability. The first two AfDs closed as "No consenus"
(1st) and "Delete" (2nd), both in 2007. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Hits from Google and GNews cover this performer's death, but few have biographical depth. Most of the sources are in Hungarian, and I can't vouch for their reliability. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is also coverage about her retirement[2] and what seems like a tv show featuring her on some Hungarian channel.[3][4] No idea about their reliability and I acknowledge there is a systematic bias against foreign sources because editors have no clue on their reputation or reliability. Perhaps we should be polling editors from the Hungarian wikipedia's version of WP:RSN if there is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are generally not notable. Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia, and does not seek to be a comprehensive listing of political candidates. Instead we seek to be a truly international encyclopedia, where at least it is hoped that the people who serve in legislative bodies in Venezuela, Ghana, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States and Tonga all are equally likely to have articles created on them. This is not quite the case, but we at least can agree that the absurd number of unelected candidates make it impossible to even consider including them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County treasurer is an office that might get a person into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but is not one that guarantees him an article just because he exists — and being a non-winning candidate for office counts for nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (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. This has moved away from a deletion discussion, feel free to continue elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 15:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not notable. There is no third-party coverage of route nineteen as a group worthy of study or discussion. The selection criterion is as arbitrary as the magnetic orientation or longitude of the route. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Needing to disambiguate "Route 19" is a huge stretch, and the shared number is not enough of a reason otherwise to link these. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Unless there are published sources that discuss this particular route number this is all original research.Charles (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not make lists that associate things by happenstance similar character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Now that the wikilawyering has started, I should point out that List of highways numbered 19 and List of public transport routes numbered 19 both fail to meet the standard for disambiguation articles WP:DABNAME. The page Route 19 does not make it easier for the reader. Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. In every case the reader will have to click through twice to reach the article of interest. Rhadow (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)** @Rhadow: So we should fix that rather than making it even harder for the reader by deleting this page entirely. If this page is kept, I'd support starting a new RfC to reopen the discussion on how to handle these articles. Ideally, I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create a disambiguation page Route 19 (disambiguation). But simply put, that's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If the routes are notable, this is an appropriate disambiguation page. If they're not, delete them first, then worry about the list. Simply put, disambiguation pages like this are not required to meet WP:GNG, and any assertion to the contrary is patently absurd. And WP:DABNAME is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Start an RfC or something. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn’t a disambiguation page, it’s a set index article, a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it should be a disambiguation page. I'd support merging this with List of highways numbered 19 to create Route 19 (disambiguation). But that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Someone searching for "Route 19" should be able to find whatever Route 19 they're looking for as easily as possible. The current situation isn't ideal, but it's a whole lot better than deleting these articles entirely. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first get the listed pages delete. — MapSGV (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- a list contains a set of articles with a common logical characteristic worthy of discussion. No third party has chosen to write about Bus routes numbered seventeen. It makes as much sense as creating a List of Presidents of the United States named James. Rhadow (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhadow: was this list created before the creation of these listed pages? MapSGV (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question, MapSGV. We are not encouraged to create empty lists, such as List of Presidents of the United States named Leroy. This article, List of public transport routes numbered 19 had two elements when it was created in 2009. The answer to your question is No. Rhadow (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to delete per this explanation. Yes a lot of indexes can be created like the one you named and we have to avoid it. — MapSGV (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MapSGV: The problem is it's not a list, it's a disambiguation page that's poorly titled due to a prior RfC. But that's not a deletion issue. The issue is that Route 19 could refer to either a highway numbered 19 or a transit route numbered 19, and the RfC determined we should have separate disambiguation pages for the two. I would prefer to merge this with List of highways numbered 19, for instance, to create Route 19 (disambiguation), but this is not the appropriate place to discuss that given the prior RfC. To further the Presidential analogy, President Harrison exists as a disambiguation page even though there are few if any sources which discuss Benjamin and William Henry together. But it's not called List of Presidents Named Harrison. Again, though, that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue. Such an article, if it existed, would almost certainly be moved to the appropriate place rather than deleted. If this is kept, I'd be open to starting a new RfC on what exactly to call these disambiguation pages, since the title is just inviting confusion like this. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to easily get to whichever Route 19 they're looking for. That's why we have disambiguation pages. And while I agree the current situation is poorly designed, that's still not a deletion issue. I'll also note that we have disambiguation pages for Red Line, Orange Line, etc. and I don't see why it should be different for routes that are numbered rather than colored. But it should just be one disambiguation page for everything with that name, not several lists. Smartyllama (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Smartyllama, I appreciate your assertion that this article is a disambiguation page, but (a) it is most clearly entitled List of .. and (b) it is not in the Category:Disambiguation pages. Editors are warned against creating disambiguation pages based on partial name matches WP:PTM, which is the case here. That's why there is no article List of Presidents Named Harrison. Rhadow (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)\[reply]
@Rhadow: I agree the page shouldn't exist as a list. At the same time, there's a clear need for a disambiguation page. If we did have a page called List of Presidents Named Harrison, it would be moved to where it belongs (and currently is) not deleted outright thereby preventing readers from finding information on whichever President Harrison they're looking for. If these pages aren't disambiguation pages, they should be. And that's not a deletion issue, that's a content issue which should be discussed with a new RfC. Someone searching for Route 19 should be able to find whichever Route 19 they're looking for. This isn't the way to do it, but deleting these articles certainly isn't either. Smartyllama (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that proper disambiguation pages do exist, as discussed below. Smartyllama (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list spun on an arbitrary property matching an arbitrary value, is ridiculous. DexterPointy (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether this page is better suited in list or disambiguation form is not a deletion issue and should not be treated as such. Only one delete !vote explicitly addressed the need to disambiguate these pages, and I hope the closer will take this into account. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Public Transport Routes is a so generic scope, that disambiguation by their arbitrary number alone, makes little more sense than disambiguation of Nobel Prize Winners by number of letters in their first names'. - If there is a need for disambiguation of Public Transport Routes, then it would be by location (e.g. country, region, city), and then optionally subdivided into type (e.g. bus, tram, train, metro), and only then may route number become relevant. DexterPointy (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how disambiguation pages work. "Route 1" is a plausible search term and the reader should be able to find the information they're looking for as easily as possible. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be whether the delete !voters would object to a disambiguation page called, for instance, Route 1 (disambiguation) that included these routes among other content with that name (such as highways). If not, this is a content issue, not a deletion one. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Your concern is valid for list articles, but disambiguation articles generally are used for things with the same name but little else in common. You may want to reconsider your !vote in light of the information below re existing disambiguation pages. Smartyllama (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that I missed a feature/fact of WikipediaSearch, namely that a search does not always produce a search results list, but rather sometimes produce a disambiguation page. (I've stricken my "Delete", and will return w. comments focused on mergings & redirections) DexterPointy (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just discovered that Line 19 and the others are actual disambiguation pages that exist and are properly marked as such. In light of this, I'm striking my !vote above and adjusting it below. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Line 1, Line 2, etc. This content belongs at a disambiguation page, not a list, but I can't see how a redirect would hurt and the standards are lower for those. Besides, there's no need to duplicate content. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a reader will type in List of public transport routes numbered 19 instead of Route 19, then a redirect is entirely appropriate. I don't see the point of leaving it in, though. Rhadow (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. A redirect wouldn't really do any harm, and could be beneficial. At the very least, it stops someone else from recreating this article later, and us having to go through this whole thing all over again. Smartyllama (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it, then. And for the other nineteen. Rhadow (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to let this AfD run its course since there are still delete !votes (and one keep !vote), so let's wait until it's closed officially. Smartyllama (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirections & Merges - This is part of a greater mess. A WikipediaSearch for [Line 19] produces Line 19 (a disambiguation page) A WikipediaSearch for [Route 19] produces Route 19 (a disambiguation page) Yet this AfD is about List of public transport routes numbered 19, which is presently a separate logical-sub-page of Route 19
That's an incomplete list, and many of the articles included (linked in that list) are stubs, stubs with no real chance of getting anywhere meaningful. - The first one I picked (from the list) was Puerto Rico Highway 19, and lets throw a party, because: In little more than 24 hours, that article will be exactly 10 years old, yet does still only contain what more easily can be read of a map.
So, as I already said, this is part of a greater mess.
Well, "part of a greater mess" can more honestly be phrased as "motherfucking inane bottomless pit of unorganised ad hoc structure, a chaos produced by void of diligence, if not even void of intelligent behaviour" (a "wisdom of the crowd" product). - Even #TwitterHashTags are better. Not because they're more meaningful or present any structure, but because they don't pretend to represent anything (other than some sort of signal, hipster peacocking)
@DexterPointy: Primary state highways are considered notable per long-time consensus. Let's not mess with that for now. This is neither the time nor the place. Puerto Rico is a special case since it's not a state, I'll grant. Really, if we're going to touch anything more than the public transit articles, we need an RfC, not an AfD. So let's merge just the transit ones for now and start an RfC as needed to deal with the highways. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DexterPointy: Primary vs. Secondary State Highway isn't determined by length but by classification (though length usually figures into it). A number of states have numerous extremely short (<1 mile) secondary routes, which are not notable. In Virginia, virtually every public road outside of cities and a handful of counties are numbered routes, but only the primary ones as designated by the state are considered notable. However, in certain states, extremely short primary highwasy can be merged into one article - for instance List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile. However, a mile is usually the cutoff for those, so 2.4 miles would probably be worthy of its own article. See, for instance, New York State Route 113, which is about the same length, and numerous others. Again, if we want to have a discussion on what exactly the cutoff should be, this isn't the appropriate place to have it. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: It's 2.4km, not 2.4miles, i.e. it's 1.5miles : Can I lure you into joining me here for handling the PR-19 thingy? --DexterPointy (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at this point I would not object to a procedural close for the purpose of starting an RfC - there's way too much to deal with here at AfD since we have three sets of articles, two of which should definitely be merged with each other, and possibly with a third. But AfD is not really the place to deal with such a huge topic. And there's no point in wasting five more days here at AfD when it's not the right place to discuss what we want to discuss. Smartyllama (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, ideally in my opinon we'd have 20 pages, one for each number. Combining all 40 lists into one page would be way too large, and not the proper way to disambiguate. Whether we should continue to separate public transit routes and highways as we do now is another issue, which can be discussed at an RfC once we close this. Smartyllama (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we close this as no consensus already so we can start the appropriate RfC, since consensus seems to be that's the appropriate thing to do to determine redirects, merges, etc. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This AfD has gone on for two weeks now. Let's not prolong the agony by moving the discussion elsewhere. Let's just close this this one according to consensus. If someone feels a need to open an RfC on other similar articles, fine. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's consensus, though? Redirect? Merge? Delete? All of those have been proposed. Smartyllama (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria. His main claim to notability appears to be winning the Best Screenplay award at the New Hampshire Film Festival, but that seems relatively minor. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2018 (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. Snow. Consensus is the noms rationale for deletion is invalid. (non-admin closure)Szzuk (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Prince of Thieves that there is no rationale provided for deletion, just a personal preference for categories rather than lists (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The existence of Category:Defunct football leagues in Scotland is an argument to keep, not an argument to delete, as it indicates that the list is likely to be notable per WP:LISTN. The list seems to also pass WP:LSC, particularly as most of the items are blue links. However, I looked at a couple of the linked league articles, and they don't provide WP:RS for each league, and the list itself could be improved with citations evidencing that the list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as suggested in WP:LISTN. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legit list per WP:CLN. Can be expanded. Ajf773 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like a perfectly reasonable list that people might look for, certainly needs an improvement but I can't see any clear rational for deletion. Govvy (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does not seem to be a clear rationale for deleting and the subject is notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (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.
WP:BLP of a portfolio manager with a wealth management firm, not referenced to sufficient reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. Most of the references here are either the firm's own self-published content about itself or glancing namechecks of Tetrault's existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things -- but a person has to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not just get quoted in coverage about other subjects, to get over GNG. And the only two sources here that are both independent and more than just soundbitingly about him are just covering him in the context of organizing a local charity ball hockey tournament, not anything that would pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. There's also a very real advertorial tinge here, making it very unsurprising that the creator self-declares paid editing on their userpage (although not specifically in conjunction with this article yet). None of the content or sourcing here is adequate grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable for the reasons clearly listed above by Bearcat. Jack1956 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
References appear to point to either press releases, unreliable sources, or passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE only revealed more press releases and passing mentions. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a review in a reliable source which I would consider in-depth. The source already in the article from CMS Wire I would also count as reliable with a professional editorial team. ElAhrairahinspect damage⁄berate 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? CMSWire looks to me like an SEO-y industry blog more than a reliable source, to me. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the sigcov needed to establish WP:NSOFT. Sources like www.theserverside.com seem to be directly tied to the team that runs EXo, with the articles cited using language like "After we had developed a Learning Management System (LMS), we decided to provide a custom web site as the basis for a Learning Content Management System (LCMS)", and therefore does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for independent sourcing. The same goes for the www.infoq.com sources. The FCW article is more significant, but only briefly makes mention of EXo Platform [5]. In short, EXo Platform definitely exists but its existence has not resulted in the in-depth, independent third party sources needed to establish encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with points by Eggishorn. No significant coverage. Wqwt (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello, I want to have acces on the page to modify the sources ... Otherwise, quote me the references to remove and the necessary recommendations to optimize this page and to be publish...Bjaouane (talk)14:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've been asked multiple times in the help IRC channel to provide sources to establish notability, and you've been unable to. Additionally, as other editors have mentioned here, we've been unable to locate sources ourselves. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 14:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Alfie says, the problem isn't that there are bad references in the article that need to be removed, the problem is that there aren't any good ones. The above isn't an argument to keep the article so much as it is a statement that you don't understand why other editors are objecting to the article. The links given above should help with that. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Noting also the copyright concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails notability test for artists, i.e., no notable gallery purchases or exhibitions, Government purchases or notable awards. She is a popular local artist, and her exhibition has been featured in The Independent Utah, but that is the only news item that you can find.
http://suindependent.com/st-george-art-museum-erin-hanson/
Comment I have blanked this because of copyright problems and listed it at WP:CP. If notability is established and the consensus is "keep", the page will need to be rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the previous content of the page can, for the moment, be seen here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fixed the nomination for Shekure. ansh666 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NARTIST as has received significant critical attention for her solo exhibitions in museums such as a 42 piece exhibition at the St.George Art Museum Utah, and an 11 piece exhibition at Zion National Park Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the St.George Art Museum and Zion National Park are notable galleries and museums, as required by WP:ARTIST. Sure, Zion National Park is notable, but it's not exactly known for its art collection or curatorial excellence, which I think is implied in WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to be permanent exhibits so I meant they are the exhibitions that have received attention such as here and here,Atlantic306 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that these two sources establish is that she has had two shows and been mentioned in two news articles in small, local publications. It's not enough IMHO.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the museum show mentioned is a very low level show. In fact Yelp has a picture of the actual show in question. One might also note that a "museum show" is not the same as being in the permanent collections of several notable museums, per WP:ARTIST. A search turns up nothing in terms of RS. I cannot see what the page had as it has been blanked. If you know anything about the history of art and contemporary art, you can also see that her paintings are extremely run of the mill and do not constitute anything innovative or particularly original that would meet WP:Artist. If her work was in fact original and innovative, we'd see her in permanent collections, reviews and books. We see her work not in those notability-causing things but rather the few run of the mill local news items mentioned above. Ergo, she is not notable in any way. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage that is out there is sparse, to say the least. What little there is does not convince me that there would be better in specialized references. Most of what shows up is social media based with a couple of minor, local articles. Does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Jbh Talk 04:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. There's some local-level news coverage, certainly, but no evidence that she meets WP:ARTIST. The St. George Art Museum is apparently not of sufficient importance to merit an article here, and – as Mduvekot says – Zion National Park is not noted for its excellence in the curation of art exhibitions. A word of warning: although it might at first sight appear that Saatchi Art (reference #3) is in some way connected with the rather famous London gallery, it is in fact an online sales site operated by the Leaf Group, of Santa Monica, California. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Saatchi Art as a source, it is actually worse than what you say. Artists who want to be on it need only join and they can then have a page to sell their art. it's self-publishing in the guise of a reputable dealer. As the site says, "Create your Saatchi Art account and start selling your art today". As a source it has zero value.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2018 (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.
Apparently fails WP:CORP. Apart from its routine business of buying and selling artworks, the only thing it has ever done to attract news coverage seems to be the closure of its London space. I've not found any in-depth coverage that indicates why it should be considered important enough to have an article here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added a couple of article references which provide basic verification of this gallery's operations in London and Los Angeles, but either these nor art fair listings and occasional reviews found through searches provide enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked for myself and what is said above is exactly right.104.163.148.25 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2018 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mutual energy principle in question should be entirely and summarily deleted. It is incoherent and idiosyncratic, and cannot be repaired piecemeal. It cannot be saved by saying 'Oh, it's just that the author is not fluent in English'. It mixes quantum and classical ideas as if they belonged to the same paradigm. It is more or less pure OR. This is currently obvious from its being a very long article that is the work of a sole author.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically exactly the kind of thing WP:NOR was invented to stop. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmitigated junk. Formally WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. This looks awful. I doubt a PhD would have an easy time sorting it out. Appears to be the work of a singular author and sounds like a lecture. A damning factor for this article is the fact that it has a conclusion and synthesizes the techno-babble from above. Nope. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Save The mutual energy principle is a theory combining the two important theories, one is Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory derived in 1945 and the time-domain reciprocity theorem from W. J. Welch derived in 1960. In the time Wheeler and Feynman writing the absorber theory, they do not know the the time-domain reciprocity theorem. I believe if they know they will also introduced the mutual energy principle. Dr. Shuang-ren Zhao derived the mutual energy theorem in 1987. The mutual energy theorem and time domain reciprocity theorem can be seen as a same theorem but one is in the time domain and another one is in Fourier domain. This theorem tell us the part of energy send from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna. This theorem tell us the receiving antenna sends advanced wave similar to the absorber in Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory. 30 years after the derivation of the mutual energy theorem, Dr Shuang-ren Zhao finally realized that the mutual energy theorem actually can also describe the energy flow of the photon. This is a very important discovery. Hence it should offer some time to let this article fully develop, correct some English errors, make good formula and so on. The mutual energy principle is Wheeler and Feynman trying very hard to get but still not. However Wheeler and Feynman have introduced many concepts which have been included inside the theory of the mutual energy principle.Imrecons (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's beyond me to evaluate whether there is actually some fundamental discovery here that will revolutionise the world of physics - but then again, that's not what Wikipedia is for. We don't publish novel ideas. After this principle/theory has been thoroughly digested, reviewed, verified by repeated experiments, and incorporated into generally accepted science - then it should have an article here. At the moment it is OR. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research - note absence of sources/references beyond very first paragraph. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well, the real issue of course is WP:OR, and the refs make it clear this is a single-man or rather single-lab project. This being said, I scanned quickly through the contents, and while there are no outright calculations mistakes or other egregious stuff, this has a few hallmarks of WP:FRINGE (especially in the "conclusion" section) - I could develop if really needed, but I am not sure that is a worthwhile use of time here. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really sure from taking a look at the article what it's even about. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our existing articles on the topic are not fantastic, but the understandable half of the article in consideration is about Maxwell equations, more precisely solutions of the form of the retarded potential. The other half involves pretty much every concept of quantum physics, but I cannot parse it (it may be because of my limited knowledge of the stuff, but I doubt it). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Steve (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. It's just original research, which is not what we publish. There's lots of peer-reviewed journals for that stuff. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (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.
"Women's liberation movement" is already bolded as another term used for the Feminist movement. This article seems to be repeating the history of second-wave feminism/radical feminism and I don't see any unique information in this article. I don't doubt the importance of the term, but I've only ever seen it used as a synonym for the feminist movement and don't think it needs it's own article. I think it deserves it's own section within Feminist movement or Feminism to discuss how it was the way women identified themselves before those terms were popularized. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, then merge Your intention seems entirely reasonable, but AfD is the wrong venue for this: if you want to merge one article into the other, you should follow the process for page merges: see WP:MERGE. -- The Anome (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean, but the sections I'm suggesting are more of an attempt at rationale for deletion (basically "this term is important enough for maybe a section in another article but doesn't deserve a page on a topic already fully discussed in other articles") than they are a merge proposal. I would have suggested a merge if I thought that the information in the current article contained what I think should be in sections of other pages, but it doesn't. It just re-hashes information that is already contained in second-wave and radical feminism. If I suggested it as a merge, I wouldn't really be taking anything from the article in question--I'd have to look for sources discussing the term. Sorry if that was a little confusing, but thank you for your recommendation. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Woodsy lesfem: Its a misunderstanding that the term Women's Liberation Movement is a synonym for 'the' feminist movement. Like Socialist Feminism, Radical Feminism, Reformist Feminism and Liberal Feminism, it is one of the strands of Western feminism that have differing analyses of the sources of women's oppression and disadvantage and what should be done to change this. To provide detailed information about all the different strands of complex political movements all on one Wikipedia article makes for indigestible reading. Especially if the movement is international. (Imageine trying to do "the Labour movement" in one article ..) Makes for much better comprehension if each of those approaches to feminism are named and described BRIEFLY in a general article, with links provided to the more detailed descriptions. My suggestion is that if the general article is loaded with too much DETAILED information (eg. on Women's Liberation, Socialist feminism etc), what is needed is a good edit of the general article to re-locate this DETAILED info into the more specific articles. In other words the solution is not to get rid of the specific articles but to tidy up the more general one. I'm new to Wikipedia but hope this is useful ( and I will give it a go myself if I have time to scratch).SheHoo (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is well sourced and has a long editing history. It deserves to be kept as an independent article and not simply made a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly SheHoo. One would not expect an article about the film industry to discuss all genres of movies and processes in great depth. It would rather be, so to speak, an anchor article about which other articles explain in greater depth specific aspects of the industry. Women's liberation was the think tank, so to speak from which other aspects of second wave feminism germinated.[6] It was a time when radical changes in the 1960s, such as the civil rights movement, the decolonization movements, the AIM movement and other radical ideas, led to women wanting to deal with inequalities throughout the society, rather than efforts aimed at unfair practices of individual businesses or laws.[7] In defining the movement and forcing women to think about what they wanted and how they defined themselves within the context of society, conflicts and fissures broke off between those who wanted to reform society and those who wanted to radically alter society, giving birth to other aspects of second wave feminism. Curthoy's argues that Women's Liberation differed from radicalism in that it focused on the harm of oppression to society at large.[8] It was a distinct world-wide phenomenon, as shown by the sources, which clearly indicate the topic is a significant facet of second wave feminism that lasted over two decades and clearly meets GNG. [9], [10],[11],[12], [13]SusunW (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ipigott and SusunW. Also, clearly meets GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Speedy Keep. Changing from Keep to Speedy Keep, which I should have done from the start. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @SheHoo and SusunW: the term arose at a specific historical moment, within a specific context, and cannot and should not be conflated with the terms that succeeded it. Agree that (as so often) a good overhaul is the way to go. Alafarge (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepSusunW showed exactly why this isn't the same as the Feminist movement. There's a reason we have different names for different social movements: there's a lot of nuance involved that can get lost when we try to merge everything into one article. It also diminishes the work and effort of the people involved to lump them into one homogeneous grouping. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That concept (WLM as not a synonym) is not solid though--the statement "The expression "Women's Liberation" has been used to refer to feminism throughout history." from History of feminism has a legit source. I'll give ya that women's liberation has generally been used to specify the second-wave (see Jo Freeman's discussion of the branches of the WLM in the first few pages of this paper--NOW/liberal vs those coming from the New Left/younger women doing the more radical stuff[1]) but there are sources that call the entire movement for women's rights the women's liberation movement, as well as call the second-wave the women's liberation movement. [2][3][4][5][6][7] It's important to note that people stopped calling it the women's liberation movement and started calling it the women's movement (which it's still called by some, although it's more commonly just called feminism now) due to stigma, so I disagree that it was only a specific type of feminist movement. Regardless, it definitely needs to be reworked. Again, I appreciate the input from y'all. Never quite sure how to close these discussions/rescind my nomination lol Woodsy lesfem (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not typically the place to discuss the article, which I will grant should be severely overhauled. Sources can always be found to establish any point of view, but looking at historical sources, we gain a sense that the WLM was a period when sexism was not only recognized, it was challenged, with women seeking the right to be autonomous. That was a different concept than simply seeking socio-economic and political gains, which had been the course of the first wave of feminism. While it may now be lumped in with the history that came after, at the time, it was decidedly a radical concept for women to view themselves as individuals rather than the societal roles that defined them.p 299, [14], p 306 It wasn't a specific type of movement, in the sense that it was unified and seeking singular gains like suffrage, equal pay, etc., but it was a specific movement in that consciousness raising on the question of autonomy and women being able to chart their own course became a mainstream idea for the first time. SusunW (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeProded article. Prod reason was Abstract WP:DICTDEF that requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of. Dependant on a singular source that spends all of a few sentences in a multiple page research paper. Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod. Fundamentally this would be best served as a section of Artin approximation theorem (as the text of this page claims critical dependance on the text) until such time that this page could be spun off into a proper article. I am bringing this to AFD under the auspices of "Articles for discussion" and not just looking for Deletion. I think a merge/redirect would be best, however I don't have the expertiese to correctly merge/redirect and I know that if this were to go the regular route of Merge requests, in 6 months 10k bytes of discussion about the suitability will have occured but no forward progress will have been made. Calling the question here forces a timetable for the merge/redirect (if any true merging needs to be occur). I thank the author of this article as they used it as a preview of a "What about X" argument for a draft of similar quality/content that is at MFD. Hasteur (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Deproder made no effort to address the concerns of the prod"? False [15][16]. Please do not jump the gun. Moreover, your characterization of the original source is incorrect: the theorem which is the subject of this article occupies a central part of that paper's logical flow, and indeed, that paper calls it the "central technical ingredient we need" and a "remarkable result". XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially with XOR's additions, but probably only if there's a source that refers to this specifically as "Popescu's Theorem", and not something slightly more oblique. While it's just a stub, it seems notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs)
Keep. Reference 2 of the article is a reliable source for the name of the theorem and for its notability. As the Journal of the American Mathematical Society is one of the most important and the most selective journals of mathematics, this reference is sufficient for establishing the notability of the subject, and thus for keeping this stub. D.Lazard (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we removed everything from the encyclopedia that some non-expert editor fails to understand we wouldn't be left with much of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree the article is a bit short as it is, but that’s why it is a stub and a stub is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to start the article (i.e., not every new article needs to be split off from the existing article.) Beside, the article itself is already informative; it gives the statement and explains the application (so it makes sense it exists as a standalone article.) —- Taku (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "requires a degree in mathematics to be able to make heads or tails of" is not grounds for deletion. That is true of many topics in mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, there's not only one source. Secondly, sure, it's a bit over most people's heads, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means more people need to work on it. Thirdly, all the reasons everyone else has said. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly notable, the requirement of specialist knowledge is not a valid policy-based grounds for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might be hard to read, but its quite notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (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. no meaningful content Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - fails WP:CSD#A7. There is only an infobox and no sources at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted via AfD a couple of months ago. This version is slightly expanded in content but still does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He is mentioned only trivially in the references provided, other claims are not referenced at all, and I cannot find other significant discussion of the individual. ...discospinstertalk 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The article attempts to claim notability by association without any in-depth sources about the subject or his work or other evidence of actual notability. Repeated re-creation calls for protection. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources are not substantively enough about him to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a secondary school, so there is no clear rule about whether or not it should be kept. If the only sourcing possible is the school's own webpage/Facebook page, it should be deleted. I'll wait for other people to try to find sourcing before making a !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient in-depth or persistence of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate inherent notability. In fact there are sofew that it is actually hard—not to say impossible—to verify its existence at all. The only corroborative evidence that this is what it says it is is their own website; per WP:SPS, this is not a source for the topics existence or verification. Combined with the inclusion of promotional material and the reliance on copyrighted images suggests that this may well be a thing; or a planned thing; but it's not notable as of today, and, WP:ORGCRIT (not counting her sisters, ORGIND, AUD and ORGDEPTH), has no place in the encyclopaedia. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nothing remotely resemblant to non-trivial coverage in local RS.Echo SN54129.I found a mention over here.~ Winged BladesGodric 08:43, 21 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no information online about this publication, the company or the persons named in the article which leads me to believe it's either a very obscure one this is a fake article. *Αλέξανδρος (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Kyriakatika Elathen". In Greek: "Κυριακάτικα ΕΛΑΘΕΝ"; ΕΛΑΘΕΝ stands for the self-coined "Ελευθερο-Αδεσμευτο-Θεματο-Νέα". Ιt's a joke, an imaginary "newspaper" by a blogger called "Μυστηριώδης Εκδότης" (= Mysterious Publisher), who supposed to be its "editor-in-chief" [17], [18], [19]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advert by undisclosed paid editor with only primary sources, either the subject or an affiliated business (hardinge)and what superficially looks like reliable coverage but is in fact an advertisement, [20] Note the "article" has no byline and is marked as "Anzeige" (advertisment). Mduvekot (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely zero indications of notability, fails WP:NCORP. References fail WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing++ 19:36, 26 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
source pointed to only BBC (primary) where she works. Not meeting nobility . Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: moved from bottom of old afD that page curation scripting mistakenly added this nomination to. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real change since 1st del. Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2018 (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.
Unremarkable bit of civil engineering. I'd redirect to the railway it serves but there does not seem to be an article. TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*weak delete I'm surprised to come across a railroad viaduct about which little is written, but except for the two localish sources everything other reference is incidental. 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)
Given clarification of the listed status, the article should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a railway viaduct- Articles exist for plenty of others which are just as, if not more, 'incidental'. If it's referenced then what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milepost98 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect that seems unnecessary. Nobody would propose merging Craigmore Viaduct with Great Northern Railway (Ireland), for example, or Boyne Viaduct with the Drogheda article. Why can't notable railway infrastructure have articles separate from their company articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milepost98 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested to merge as a possible alternative to deletion, if there was consensus that it was not notable enough for an article. Its listed building status (upgraded from B to A) makes it notable. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to be a viaduct of sufficient size that it should be capable of sustaining a article. More references are required (tagged) before GNG can be demonstrated to have been met, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed building. So obviously the experts don't regard it as an "unremarkable bit of civil engineering". Therefore clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT and does have a very good source. And the railway it serves does have an article, albeit a short one that doesn't mention this structure: Belfast–Bangor line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that document it's unclear what grade of listing it is, but it does incline me towards a keep. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grade A - it's the letter below "Survey 2". It's clearer by using https://apps.communities-ni.gov.uk/Buildings/ and selecting "North Down" from the list, as the table has columns for current and former grades (not accessible in the current version of iOS as the button to open the page doesn't work). Peter James (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade A listed buildings in Northern Ireland are always notable; it's the highest level, and the practice here has never been challenged. Based on the discussion above, it seems the article wasn't clear about the exact status. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (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.
Local preliminary round run by a franchise of a national pageant business. Should be redirected back to the parent organization per WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAINLegacypac (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State not local pageant, plenty of coverage of pageant & titleholders in reliable sources. Discussion should have been postponed until Alabama & Washington came to a conclusion --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Local to Georgia. McDonalds Georgia does not get a page either but it is a much bigger more substantial business than this one. Adding separate pages for franchise holders is a policy violation and essentially a form of corporate spam. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. If there is concern that the Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants article should not exist, then let that page be nominated for deletion. But given that the article does exist, and given further that it reached a "keep" decision when nominated in 2015, it is now time to face the fact that it is becoming too large for a single article. Spinning out separate articles for separate sub-topics is appropriate, and using "by state" as the criterion is a reasonable way to do it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SPINOUT. Too large for one single anyway.BabbaQ (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We managed to survive without this as a seperate article until two weeks ago. We also manage to cover most of the state feeder pageants within the main article without creating pages on the non-notable Wap:BRANCHes. What changed in the last two weeks that made the top need to expand from 1 page to 52 pages? Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia managed to survive in 2004 with much less editors than today. But is today amuch better Wikipedia with the inclusion of many more articles and editor.BabbaQ (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants easily passed AFDs in 2015 and 2007. At the time, the article was a lot smaller because there had been fewer titleholders crowned up to that time. The article as it stood before it started to be split (in October, not two weeks ago) was becoming unworkably long [21] (169 references), and after Legacypac started (erroneously, in my opinion) started tagging it as OR there was a small discussion about splitting the article out. @Mariacricket: then started the process. There were two AFDs launched soon after, both of which ended as no consensus.[22][23]. Hope you enjoy the history lesson. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable contest in its own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? And how?BabbaQ (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That we've managed to survive without this article until 2 weeks ago may very well be the most ridiculous rationale for proposed deletion I've encountered, and that's quite a statement, as I've seen some really stupid shit here. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The urgency to "spinout" 52 or so articles from one about two weeks ago is strange. One page was working fine. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable state-level teen pageant; WP:SPINOUT does not apply as the subject is non-notable. Coverage is routine and / or hyper-local. The article itself is nothing but a list of nn winners, not meeting WP:LISTN either. In general, this is an example of WP:NOT: an indiscriminate amount of information that fails notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage, non-notable. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State level feeder pageant. No consensus that winners of national level pageant are notable. The winners of the these state level feeders are not nor is the pageant. This is effectivly a franchise and they do not get their own articles because "...franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable...". Also see WP:BRANCH - "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."Jbh Talk 03:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've already recommended that the article be "kept". Right now, I'll comment on two of the arguments put forth by others. First, nothing in WP:SPINOUT calls for a separate test of notability for each sub-list spunout from an overly-large parent list. To those who suggest otherwise, I ask that they point out the language in WP:SPINOUT that leads them to that conclusion. A difficult challenge, I know, because that language simply isn't there. And when we look to the parent article, Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants, we see that it has already been tested at deletion nominations -- twice -- and has survived those nominations as "keep".
And what are we to make of this novel theory that the state pageant is simply a "branch" of the national competition. Nothing in either WP:BRANCH or WP:CHAIN even hints at the possibility that the provisions are applicable to structured systems of organized competition. If the nominator truly wants to expand the scope of those provisions in this manner, there needs to be a centralised discussion held at WP:NORG. And don't forget to notify all of the WikiProjects that deal with league sports, because this novel theory could be used to say that individual teams are merely "branches" of the leagues to which they belong. Would we then call for deletion of our article on the Philadelphia Keystones on the theory that it was merely a "branch" of the Union Association? Would we do the same with Chicago Whales, because that team was just a "branch" of the Federal League? And that's just two of several examples from one sport (baseball). Can anyone here estimate how many other articles would be subject to deletion simply because the nominator has floated a novel theory untested by any centralised discussion? Considering that there is nothing in this novel theory that would limit its scope to any particular type of competition, I suspect that the number would run into the hundreds, if not thousands. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pageants are for profit businesses and this is not a sports event, more a modeling event. The idea it is a sport is novel. Anyway, Many sports like Little League have numerous branches that run events leading to a national event, but those branches don't get articles. Same with National Spelling Bee preliminaries. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I won't dispute your observation that the pageants might be run as for-profit entities, but I note that this didn't factor into my analysis of the rules on WP:SPINOUT, nor did it factor into my concerns about expanding the reach of WP:BRANCH and WP:CHAIN. And as for your observation that "the idea [pageantry] is a sport is novel", you're quite correct. And it might have been a relevant observation had I actually made that claim. But all I did was describe both forms of entertainment as examples of structured systems of organized competition. Which they are.
Your citing of Little League Baseball might have been ill-advised. There are, in fact, a goodly number of Little League articles that give lists of winners at the sub-national level. Just a few are: Little League World Series (Northwest Region), Little League World Series (Central Region), and Little League World Series 1957-2000 (West Region). There are others, and they all serve to bolster my basic position -- lists of winners are fine, even for teenagers and even at the sub-national level. And this is the same position that the community reached -- twice -- when it "kept" the parent article with its 50+ lists. The only issue here continues to be whether hosting all of those lists in a single article would make it so large that WP:SPINOUT is appropriate. And an article whose lists contain more than 600 entries, collectively requiring more than 1,000 references for complete sourcing, is certainly large enough to invoke WP:SPINOUT.
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. MBisanztalk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (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.
Can't see anything in the article or after a brief search to suggest that this passes WP:GNG. If Raju Risaldar existed, I'd go for a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not averse to merge if there is an appropriate target (e.g. the person or alleged police assassinations in the area). Rename is probably also in order (e.g. killing of Raju Risaldar, or maybe Police encounter with Raju Risaldar (as it seems to be referred to as an encounter or fake encounter)). This police killing, of a fairly notable individual, meets GNG, some sourcing - [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31].Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Killing of Raju Risaldar. Searches on his name bring up SIGCOV from which article can be improved. I have added text sourced to a Times of India article, it begins an article upgrade. I oppose merging on the grounds that nuanced articles on the significant players in communal tensions in India are the best way to support and add depth to the articles on political and communal tensions to which they can be linked. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (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. Nomination and all delete-!votes withdrawn in light of newly discovered sourcing. (non-admin closure)~ Winged BladesGodric 14:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted via PROD and soon after recreated. Whatever this is, it seems not to be officially recognised in census reports, water supply records etc. The onefivenine.com website now cited is not considered to be a reliable source and, in fact, I thought had been blacklisted recently. See brief discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_65#UkridSitush (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the recreation was not allowed. I was simply reporting the facts. And no, AfD is not clean up but NPLACE doesn't apply to every place, nor to places that may not in fact exist. Otherwise, we would have an article for every house on every street. Please show some evidence that this place has some sort of official recognition or similar. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It exists, you can clearly see it on Google maps, it has houses, shops and banks and such. Clearly meets WP:NPLACE requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps is not a reliable source. They hold open days where they encourage visitors to edit the things. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are editing the satellite imagery. I mean, I can see it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You may be able to see a place that someone has labelled as being Ukrid. Doesn't mean it is. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think really the onus is on you to prove it isn't called Ukrid, so we can have an article with the correct title. Anyway, it is pincoded by India Post[32](etc) and has census data[33][34][35]. At this location there are banks and schools with Ukrid in their names as well.[36][37][38] It's fairly obvious it's there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pincode and census sites are not reliable sources - neither are official and the census one in particular is known to aggregate from other sites - see MT Train's note below, which has the official link. Not sure about the schools sites, although some of those are definitely aggregators with little editorial oversight and have been spammed onto Wikipedia in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the census data includes plenty of villages with 200 or so people living in it, so if it doesn't make that grade then it really is small, especially given the size of the average Indian family. I'm not trawling around to find examples but one article I edited recently and recall was Dilmeshwar, where the population was 327 across 70 houses, which may perhaps gives you an indication of how small this place must be, if it exists at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pincode itself is official. And the Indian government's own website at www.censusindia.gov.in verifies the existence of this village in their governmental database with the ID codes 369137 & 368945 in the Ramgarh district [39]. With all respect to MT Train, looking at the census handbook purely at the district level was fruitless since it is actually in a different district from what is stated in the article. (not in Bokaro District, actually in the neighboring Ramgarh district). As far as size is concerned, all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size (in 2011 it had a population of 2,054). Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A prior version of the article claimed Ukrid had a population of 5,000 in 2011, which definitely would make it a census site in its own right. That said, if the district is stated incorrectly in the article (as it also was in the prior version) then it is no wonder no-one found it when I first raised the issue. - 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
all populated inhabited places are presumed notable regardless of size - not true, otherwise we would allow articles for every street, based on the same presumed notability that exists for secondary schools etc. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish I had realised the district was wrong to begin with, it would have saved some effort. The actual text from WP:GEOLAND is Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. (obviously applies to this village) but I think individual streets are specifically excluded from this and are covered by another guideline where there are not presumed to be notable, therefore they must pass WP:GNG requirements and be significant in some way. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-368945,Patratu CD, is currently inhabited per Ramgarh cenus handbook.369137, Dulmi CD, has a total population of 2054 and passes NPLACES.I didn't know of the Search Villages/Towns tool and hence searched the wrong handbooks:)~ Winged BladesGodric 04:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I will withdraw the nomination based on the official census records found by Prince of Thieves, which relate to a place bearing the same name but in a different district and with a wildly different population to what had been claimed in the nominated article. Whether or not the article creator was hoaxing, there is a place called Ukrid and we can repurpose the article to cover that. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn and all delete comments struck. Note the article is now about what is essentially a different village, of the same name but in a different district. A non-admin closure or other speedy closure could be done. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (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.
I incorrectly copied the text of this article from Draft workspace, thereby losing attribution. Lfstevens (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Lfstevens: Are you suggesting that the topic currently in draft at Draft:Capsule neural networkis notable, but that you accidentally put this copy into mainspace? If so, I'd advise you to remove the AFD template and put on a WP:G6 - a technical speedy deletion request for "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace". Then either continue working on the draft, MOVE the draft page into mainspace, or submit it for WP:AFC. This doesn't seem to be an AFD issue at all. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I'm thoroughly snarled in WP process. Lfstevens (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Travel Service is a charter operator. It does not offer regularly scheduled common carriage to individual travelers. Therefore, a list of destinations is not meaningful. It is potentially every airport within the range of a B737-900ER. In any case, no references have been provided since 2007. A BEFORE search turns up no independent reliable references for Travel Service destinations. This article fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the reasons stated by the nominator.--JetstreamerTalk 19:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with the fact that the airline flies charter routes and it therefore has no sense to speak about a list of fixed destinations. To me, that the article has no references is not a valid reason for deletion.--JetstreamerTalk 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that these are regularly scheduled routes. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (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.
This article has been original research since 2007. No references were provided to establish notability while the airline operated. A BEFORE search today turns up no independent reliable sources. The article fails WP:V. Rhadow (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this meets WP:NPROF. Also, is this some kind of Wikipedia mirror, or is our article a copyvio? Marquardtika (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried and failed to find sources, fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many reliable sources to establish notability. M A A Z T A L K 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any RS. Non-notable.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it passes notability guidelines, so i would also delete. M A A Z T A L K 19:01, 23 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that this article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSIC and any number of other policies and guidelines.
Addressing the references:
Simply being interviewed on the radio station WHUD would appear to be of very little assistance to an assertion of notability. Many people are interviewed on radio every day. For completeness, this is the mention of the interview from Mr Abella's personal website. The suggested interview itself404s
http://powerplaymagazine.co.uk/ doesn't have a Wikipedia article. While this does not prove it is not a reliable source, it does appear to be an online magazine that more solicits content from artists instead of publishing original content about them. There is no mention all of the subject of the article within a Google search for "Abella site:powerplaymagazine.co.uk"
There is a Wikipedia article Fireworks (magazine), but this obviously and trivially not is meant by "Fireworks Magazine". This would appear to be about the http://www.rocktopia.co.uk/ sub-site "Fireworks Magazine Online Section". Again, there is no Wikipedia article about this "online magazine", and that's most probably because it an internet discussion forum. A search within that website yields "Your search - "Renato Abella" site:www.rocktopia.co.uk/ - did not match any documents."
Delete - As noted in detail above, there is nothing substantial to determine notability.London Hall (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (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.
Non-notable/WP:BLP1E. There are passing mentions of a graduate student named Tom Gray in accounts of the discovery of the fossil Lucy, but I can't find a single mention of the name after that. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Notable for one thing only but i think a redirect would be better then a delete. GuzzyG (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I agree with GuzzyG. I don't think there's enough for an article on him, but a redirect seems better than a delete.Sandals1 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (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.
This was twice deleted as A7, which was incorrect imho since the article does contain a number of claims of significance. However, after declining another A7 request, I noted that while claims exist aplenty, coverage in reliable sources apparently does not. Except the link in the article, I could not find a single source (and I tried all variations of the name). Fails WP:COMEDIAN, WP:WRITER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards SOWHY 10:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable BLP was salted under this title Dinesh Brigedier Brigy. FITINDIA 12:52, 19 February 2018 (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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a horrendous and expansive case of advertising that deletion per WP:DYNAMITE applies. (Even the choice of the article's name seems to have been part of WP:PROMOTION by paid editors [44] like User:Jilldfisher [see Jill Fischer at edX: [45]].) This is not something that can be resolved by edits or rewrites as the entire article needs to be blanked and done from scratch and, probably, a new page name created, and then the leftover redirects individually RfD'ed. Deletion, with no prejudice for recreation, is the least labor-intensive and most feasible approach. Chetsford (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11:58, 19 February 2018 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page MicroMasters Program (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Thieves (talk • contribs)
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. If somebody wants to create a redirect, that can be done as a separate action. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of anything other then inherited notability (well for one of the two people it seems to be about). In fact half the article is about someone else entirely and does not even talk about Marianne Kreuz (apart from one or two throw away lines about her death, thus she was not even on this journey).Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in actuality most of it is about the journey to Paris, with only about the last three or four lines being about finding out about the death and coming home. I shall; remove the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (assuming mainspacing mistake) Delete. Maybe even Speedy. Utter mess. Does not seem to assert notability, and beyond that it is a disjointed list of bullets - the bottom half of the article is not totally about a different person - it seems to be about Mrs Marx traveling back to Kreuz's funeral and the timing of the funeral. Regardless - BEFORE doesn't show that all that much was written about this handmaiden in the household of the esteemed revolutionary socialist.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Changiing to userfy, per 24.151.116.12's comment, and looking at Konsumtion's contributions/article-creation notes - this seems like notes for a draft and not something ready to be mainspaced. I'm not convinced subject is notable from my BEFORE - but I might be missing something (variant spelling, references to her by private name, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helene Demuth, where the sentence about her that I just added to the article lede is reliably sourced to a bio of Marx by Jonathan Sperber and can be usefully added to the Demuth article as per WP:PRESERVE. Mariannne was the younger sister of Marx's housekeeper Helene Demuth.; Marianne worked as a housemaid for the Marx family for several years. Keeping is useful in part because there has been ongoing interest in the fact that Karl Marx kept servants, and in part because so many rumours surround these servants and the question of whether Marx fathered a child by one of them - historians disagree. I did not find enough about her to support a separate article; if soneome does, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't see how this person warrants an article. Yes, she may have been mentioned in a book, however she was not the topic and here life was not particularly notable. She was the sister of someone that worked for someone famous. Possibly, the information could be moved to another article, but even that is questionable. 06:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, she is verified as having worked for Karl Marx.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I too see nothing in this article meriting its preservation. The only possible interest is that she was a servant in the Marx household, but that is inherited notability, which we do not allow. Clearly NN, despite her employer's extreme notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added another academic book that includes her role in the Marx household. I continue to think that there is enough here to merit Redirect of a one-or two sentence bit about her to the Demuth article as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure she is ever going to come up as a search, if she is only mentioned in a couple of books in a few sentences. But certainly a merge is viable (not that it will be much).Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so, a redirect to the Demuth article, to which a single sentence now in the lede "Kreuz, the younger half-sister of Marx's housekeeper Helene Demuth, worked for the Marx family as a housemaid for several years in the late 1850s and early 1860s." with the two sources that the sentence now has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need am redirect, I thought they were for situations where a term might crop up in a search but was not the title of a page?Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:FRINGE. The article was written by, and is about a theory by, Ralf-Peter Behrendt, who did not disclose his COI. Also, the theory has no consensus within the field. There is a paper, written in response to his theory which says 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.'
and further
'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
In its current state, this article rather ticks me off; it's a deliberately misleading treatment, in that it represents a disputed minority view as "the facts". Given the CIO issues noted, that's not surprising. I would suggest a partial merge (being discussed here) since there clearly exists some discussion in proper scientific channels, and with appropriate caveats this should provide some useful content within the larger topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the above: the paper from which these quotes were taken: ... 'Where Behrendt’s and our models diverge is in our hypothesis that neurotypical subjective experience (NSE) does not take place within the hippocampus itself. We, like Behrendt, see the hippocampus as an experience generator, the node in which ‘news-worthy’ information from around the brain is bound together into a comprehensible memory. But we assert that the hippocampus is only capable of creating a complex coded output, the episodic memory engram, but that the event of experiencing that new memory must happen elsewhere.' and further 'Behrendt’s proposed role for CA3 sounds like such a cul-de-sac, and thus seems implausible.'
... did not in fact contain an explicit discussion of previously published articles on the role of the hippcampus; it only referenced one of the later papers (the Frontiers article), but did not in any way deal with the content of that paper or the arguments for the theory proposed. I strikes me as possible that the Article for deletion suggestion came from the authors of that article from which these quotations were taken (Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science). I did discuss in two Editorial commentaries in that journal the 'cul-de-sac' objection specifically and also the idea that 'the experience of the new memory must happen elsewhere' specifically, but no mention of this is being made here. I did acknowledge the existence of this alternative view point in the Wikipedia article, as you can see. I invite everybody who wants to support deletion of the Wikipedial article to try and read the Faw and Faw paper (from which the references where taken) and the Editorial Commentaries dealing with that paper (in the same issue).
I don't think that removal of this Wikipedia article is justified on the basis of the above quotations taken selectively from an article that otherwise makes no mention of (and did not critically discuss [as you will find when reading that article in Whiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, referenced and acknowledged nevertheless in the Wikipedia entry 'Hippcampal theory of consciouness']) the preexisting and multiply peer-reviewed (in higher impact journals) hippocampal theory of consciousness that fits well with a large body of evidence concerning hallucinations, dream imagery, anticipatory imagery and other forms of conscious experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
The request for removal of the 'hippocampal theory of consciousness' article seems to be coming from authors of a rival theory that has less support in the scientific community and that is more philosophically (speculatively) argued than based on relevant scientific evidence. The request for removal, in my view, is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
Regarding the other concern raised by those who want remove the article, the authorship of the theory outlined in the Wikipedia article is made very clear by explicitly referencing the theoretical aspects of the overall description. The article is identified as a theoretical piece, and any theory will have had somebody who first proposed it (those references to serious journals dating back to 2010, whereas the alternative, rather idiosyncratic (and certainly not accepted in any recognized 'field' [as was implied in the justification for removal]) theory of hippocampal simulation of reality was published without explicit discussion of the preceding work in 2016 (nevertheless it was afforded a subsection in the Wikipedia article, where the critical differences mentioned by the advocates for removal were actually pointed out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.152.202 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
The idea of merger is being discussed separately, and the majority view, when I last checked, was against such merger. If already the accepted article on 'Hippocampal theory of concsiouness' 'ticks someone off' and causes them to declare it 'deliberately misleading treatment', then the reasons for such sentiments could be given on the relevant talk page. As is looks to me, the person who felt 'ticked off' by the article and called it a misleading treatment and disputed minority review is biased by pursuing his own theory, which in itself is not even reflecting a minority view and is rather patched together and vulnerable to criticism from multiple angles, as pointed out in a more moderate and diplomatic language in the Editorial Commentaries on their theory published alongside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me request the continued existence of the article 'Hippocampal theory of consciousness' on grounds of the apparently dubious motivation behind the request for its removal and on grounds of the importance of the contribution to the ongoing and so far frustrating search for the neural correlate of consciousness, which is a topic of keen interest among neuroscientists and philosophers alike.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's very clear that this is WP:promotion of one person's theory by that one person, and Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion. My previous suggestion of a merge to Consciousness has been met with some reasonable objections, and I now think that deletion is the better option. That should of course not prevent any non-connected editor from including referenced discussion of this theory in existing pages according to the WP:weight that it merits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article, it does much more than promoting a particular theory. The theory bit is only a small part of what should be an instructive article on hippocampal function, drawn from multiple authoritive sources. It offers some elegant integration, if you are familiar with the hippocampus and the debates about its functions. Furthermore, an alternative theory on the role of the hippocampus in consciousness is explicitly acknowledged and given a separate section, which my well be extended for the sake of balance. Novel theories that are recognized in reputable journals should be reflected in Wikipedia, I dare to suggest, therefore please do not delete. And let's hear what others have to say please.195.226.152.202 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
Also, a distinction should be made between the promotion of opinion pieces, propaganda or self-promotion, on the one hand, the promotion of scientific theories that have gone repeatedly through rigorous peer review processes and have been published in reputable science journals. Therefore I would like to dispute that what we are dealing with here is a clear case ofWP:promotion.Ralf-peter b (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tend towards delete. (1) The theory is novel and as a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be careful with adding novel theories that have not (yet) gained mainstream recognition. (2) There is a lack of scientific papers endorsing the theory. This may be due to the newness of the theory, or because the theory has severe problems. We cannot know at this moment in time and therefore should not publish on the theory for now (but I think labelling this is fringe theory (WP:FRINGE) is too harsh, (3) The introduction of the theory by a main author in the field does indeed cause conflict of interest concerns WP:COI (and has some element of self promotion - see WP:Promo). The case that the theory were indeed notable and important would be much better made by an editor with no relation whatsoever to Ralf Peter Behrendt. Altogether I see an article that does little harm in itself but also adds little to nothing in the current form. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the theory had severe problems it would not have been published in the type of journals it was published. It is relatively new (first publications in form of book of chapters actually predating 2010, if I remember rightly) but we all know that new theories tend to be shunned especially if they purport to deal with an issue of major importance and try to fill an important gap in our knowledge. I know this sounds somewhat grandiose, but if you look at the referenced papers you will find that the case is carefully argued and based on a vast array of evidence from behavioral neuroscience, neurophysiology, and biological psychiatry. I disagree that it 'adds little to nothing' to the debate (and I am surprised a little by the brushing-aside language used in this debate generally). Rather, it brings a new perspective to a debate that has made little or no progress over the last 20 years. I wish an expert in the field of consciousness research or in hippocampal matters would have an unbiased look at the entry. Thus far I get the impression that deletion is seen as the easiest option, one that does not require much reflection. It is generally easier to ignore somebody than to look at the issue in its own right and try and give it some justice.195.226.152.202 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — 195.226.152.202 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs). [reply]
As I said above. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, making it somewhat slow on the adaptation of new scientific insights. Since about 2.5 million scientific papers are published each year, and since many academics build a coherent set of papers on a topic, the simple fact that there are papers is not enough to judge value. Not even if one of these publications is in a journal with a high impact. It is simply not the remit of Wikipedia to judge quality or relevance of topics based on its contents - that is the job of the (so far missing) secondary sources endorsing the theory. As tertiary source we really need these endorsements of the theory. If you think this theory should be included just make sure substantial support in the broader field appears in ranking scientific journals. Once that is done Wikipedia should be happy to include the theory. (PS note that in the past accusations of "rival theorists" and "Wikipedia shuns new ideas" have often been indicators of editors trying to push a fringe point of view into the project - so in my view these arguments do any case more harm than good). Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia lags the literature; it does not lead. Deletion isn't "the easiest option"; it's the only one compatible with policy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete This article is informative and introduces the reader to one of several extant theories on the nature of consciousness. It is logically constructed, well referenced and cites alternative points of view on the subject. As such, in my opinion, it provides a service to the public and should not be deleted. I believe the article could benefit from making the manner of presentation more accessible to non-specialist audience, but I see no grounds for outright deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I extended coverage of the alternative, more recent theory on the link between hippocampus and consciousness, which was proposed by authors who appeared to have initiated this discussion about a possible deletion of this (previously accepted) Wikipedia article (please see the first several lines on top of this debate). I hope that I have thereby provided the article with greater balance and rendered it a fair reflection of the present debate about the role of the hippocampus in consciousness. I hope this will convince the initiators of the move for deletion and others that the article should be kept alive.Ralf-peter b (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first line of WP:YFA is 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our mission is to share accepted knowledge to benefit people who want to learn.' (my emphasis). As it stands, it would appear that this theory is not accepted knowledge. It would appear to be the theory of one person. It doesn't matter how brilliant that person is, or how many papers or books that person has published. What matters is that it is widely accepted within the scientific community. At present, the article does not cite any other publications that specifically, and unambiguously, endorse the theory. The attempt to 'balance' the article is counter-productive, as it only further emphasises the lack of acceptance within the scientific community.
What I find rather distasteful in this discussion is the attempts to smear me with unsubstantiated, and to be frank, quite ridiculous accusations of bias or a conflict of interest. I do not have a 'rival theory', nor am I an author of any publications. I simplify cited a response to one of the authors papers as an example of the lack of consensus towards the subject. I do not 'endorse' any of the competing theories. On the other hand, it is the author, Ralf-peter b, who has failed to disclose his WP:COI.
I came across this article in the AfC process. I declined it twice, first for reading like an essay, and then second, for WP:FORUM, WP:PROMO and WP:COI. So per WP:FORUM, it says 'Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information', and 'Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge'.
So after it was rightfully declined, the author, ignoring the html comment 'Do not remove this line!', removed my comment, and without declaring his conflict of interest, resubmitted the article. Yes it was accepted, but this does not give full endorsement of the suitability of the article. Any article created may be subjected to a deletion discussion. Once I saw that this article was being discussed as a possible merge candidate at Talk:Consciousness#Proposed_merge_with_Hippocampal_theory_of_consciousness, I felt it necessary to raise the possibility of deletion for the numerous policy violations. This was later supported, and so I nominated the article for deletion.
I also notice that one of the participants of this discussion, IP 195.226.152.202, was rather unsuccessful in adding the theory to the Consciousness and Hippocampus pages, and was actually admonished with 'the sources quoted by this anonymous user are mainly from one person, which is not desirable, indeed rather suspicious. Also the other sources do not see to confirm the hippocampus as the source of self consciousness, or of consciousness itself.' Also at Talk:Consciousness#Hippocampal_theory_of_consciousness there was 'There are two basic problems with the material: (1) it is not written neutrally (see WP:NPOV); (2) it is not notable enough to belong here.' and 'Fully agree. For such a complex and much discussed topic we should cover the main approaches and not spend too much (if any) space on novel theories supported and developed by only few scientific authors. Also I agree the tone of writing is more like a persuasive pitch than a neutral presentation and for that fact alone the text would not be acceptable.' The IP was also warned about violating WP:3RR. Then at the same time of this kerfuffle Ralf-peter b appears with the Hippocampal theory of consciousness draft. (and being an active AfC reviewer, came across my desk) This can't simply be a coincidence, and so it would appear that there is some form of sock puppetry or undisclosed close association involved. Either way, it's very suspicious.
So, to those participants with 'skin in the game'. If you wish for this article to survive, you must demonstrate that the article does not violate WP:NOR, WP:COI and WP:FORUM. This is done by, and I quote 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.'. So first off, remove all of the references to Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications. (this would satisfy WP:COI). Next, provide university level textbooks (or other similar secondary sources) and published papers written by other established and reputable researchers that explicitly endorse or have expanded upon the theory. If you are unable to follow these directions, then the article will continue to violate Wikipedia policies and must be deleted. Thank you David.moreno72 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to detective david.moreno72: 'Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are reliable, published secondary sources, published in reputable journals and peer-reviewed and endorsed by specialists in the field of behavioural neuroscience! There is nothing in the preceding extensive polemic that deals with the content of the article itself, nothing that suggests that david.moreno72 is in a position to evaluate the content of the article or has even read it carefully. Let us please ask the person who kinldly accepted the article in the first place to have a look at this debate and offer a comment!
Yes, versions of the article were initially unsuccessfully included into broader topics ('consciousness' and 'hippocampus'), but but this should not be seen as a 'crime' and held against someone who had never before tried to contribute to wikipedia (and who had at that point no knowledge of any of the rules or conventions and what constitutes a 'violation' of such rules and conventions). In any event, I accept it better stands on its own. In an ongoing process of improvement, the article has become more balanced and there is only a small portion within the overall article that hinges on references to Behrendt, although this is a crucial portion. The overwhelming majority of the space is devoted to referenced factual information that is widely accepted but that may not yet have been seen and appreciated in this context.
With regards to the issue of bias, it seemed to me that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion. These are quotations that I personally know and that someone concerned with policing Wikipedia doesn't just happen to come across. This discussion was clearly initiated as a polemic against a theory established in the literature, although not widely known, rather than as a technical criticism of the article itself (please go back to the beginning of this debate and have a look). The conflict of interest issue was already being dealt with separately (an acknowledgment of authorship has now been added as the first reference in the article). Again, summarising a scientific theory that has been in the literature since before 2010 (including some book chapters in authoritative volumes) should not be readily confused with promotion of personal interest.
But as it happens, the articles from which those quotations are taken are precisely the ones that have explicitly endorsed or expanded on the theory, despite the appearance of disagreement given by the quotations themselves (see Faw and Faw's paper quoted in the article and a closely related one in the same issue of the same journal). I hope somebody other than david.moreno72, who is rather heavily involved in the fight against my humble contribution to an area of wide scientific and philosophical interest (a contribution that has been quoted more widely in the literature than just Faw and Faw's articles), will make the ultimate decision as to whether this article should remain or not. Can I ask who will make the decision (will it be those with 'skin in the game' or those who have a specific interest in the topic)? And when will it be made?Ralf-peter b (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS to response to david.moreno72: How can you call for all references to Behrendt's articles to be deleted, if a hippocampal theory of consciousness only came into being and entered the scientific debate through my writings? I included into the article a new reference to Howard Eichenbaum's latest and sadly last paper (2017) which too points to a link between episodic memory and the experience of time and space, further supporting the ideas outlined in my 2013 Frontiers paper, in particular.Ralf-peter b (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ralf-peter b. May I remind you of the Wikietiquette when contributing to deletion discussions at WP:AFDEQ, specifically 'Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.' and 'Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.'.
First, Ralf-Peter Behrendt's publications' are not secondary sources, they are primary. Please read WP:USEPRIMARY. Second, your unsubstantiated accusation that 'that authors of the quotations on top of this discussion or someone closely associated with them have initiated this motion for deletion' is totally baseless. So how is it that 'someone concerned with policing Wikipedia doesn't just happen to come across', actually come across such quotations. One word. Google. This might come as a surprise, but I have reviewed over 8,000 AfC's and have over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. Before reviewing a complex subject I will take the time to not only read the AfC, but look at the web presence of the contributors and research the topic by searching Google Scholar.
In regards to WP:COI, the method of disclose is detailed at WP:DCOI. I notice that it is only today that you have decided to disclose your COI, but still, without the proper template. Thank you David.moreno72 13:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to that response by David.moreno72: The 'detective' bit was meant humorously (not sarcastically), sorry if offence was caused. Thank you for clarifying how you came upon those quotes, but if you read the articles themselves (two of them), you will see that Faw and Faw endorse and develop the original idea, just as you require. Insofar as there are differences of view, those were addressed and clarified in Editorial commentaries published alongside their papers (and touched upon in the article under scrutiny). I still have a feeling though that those quotes were utilised by yourself specifically to cast doubt on the theory, not to point out violations of wikipedia policies. In any event, the article was changed in response to those very quotes, as you will have seen in the last section covering the Faw and Faw source.
Those referenced papers of mine I regard as secondary rather than primary sources because they are review articles that summarise and tie together a large body of hitherto scattered evidence that points to a critical role of the hippocampus, in general, and of CA3, in particular, in the production of hallucinations, dreams, internal imagery - all varieties of conscious experience. Thank you too Ralf-peter b (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: With regards to the reminder not to 'not to make unsourced negative comments about living people', I hope this did not refer to me having said 'his sadly last paper', because sadly indeed Professor Eichenbaum, the visionary scientist who clarified the role of the hippocampus in the formation of memories [codes] of events as they happen, passed away recently.)
(one last PS: I feel silly now for having allowed myself to believe [on the basis of those quotations used as a rationale for deletion] that the motion for deletion of this article was initiated by Faw and Faw. My sincerest apologies to Faw and Faw! I always had constructive and fruitful discussions with Matt Faw in particular and I am grateful to him for those!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf-peter b (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment on the above (sorry for disrupting the timeline). Ralf-peter b please be informed that tying together a large body of evidence, is literature synthesis, which is perfectly fine scientific practice. But it also involves a creative act in bringing forth a new theory which does make those conclusions primary. Arnoutf (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David.moreno72, please notice that the article is not called "The final truth on the hippocampus and consciousness," it is called "Hippocampal theory of consciousness." It presents valuable information and an elegant set of arguments that enrich the field of neuroscience and contribute to the discussion of this very poorly understood subject. Therefore, as I mentioned in my previous post here, it does a service to the public, which Wikipedia should support, not suppress. I read various Wikipedia articles all the time, and many of them are full of mistakes, tendentious presentation of the subject, cherry-picking of the sources, or the use of incomplete or unreliable sources. And they all happily survive and thrive under your editorship. Why this useful article on the hippocampal theory of consciousness is singled out for deletion is beyond my ken. I would recommend to take a step back, let the article be, and allow the actual specialists in the field gradually to weigh in by editing it or commenting on it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.175.226 (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 67.99.175.226. Please read WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:VALUABLE. The main argument against the article is not that it's a theory, but that it's a theory that does not appear to have widespread support within the scientific community, and most importantly, does not appear to be notable. At present, the leading theory is Integrated information theory, and yes, it is not perfect and there are criticisms, but it is most definitely notable. Any theory of consciousness will need to be ambitious, and will have it's detractors, but before it's inclusion in Wikipedia, there should at least be references in textbooks (ie. secondary sources), perhaps an entry in 'The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy' and mentions in more broadly scientific journals such as Nature or Scientific American. All of which has happened for Integrated information theory, but not for Hippocampal theory of consciousness. So, when it is comfortably demonstrated that the theory easily satisfies WP:N, then yes, Wikipedia should have an article about it. Until then, no. Thank you David.moreno72 04:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David.moreno72. This should serve as a suitable summation of most of the expansive back-and-forth above. The article gives undue, and insufficiently critical, prominence to a "newcomer" theory. Which is desirable and indeed vital in scientific discourse, but not in a general encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to remove some of the WP:COI sources, but I'm just not finding appropriate WP:MEDRS/WP:SCIRS secondary coverage. None of the seemingly independent secondary sources even use the term. This appears to be promotion by the author of the term (who is much too close to be writing the article) as a WP:NEOLOGISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Being member of an internal council of 15 people in a minor political party is hardly notable per WP:NPOL. It seems that one of the council members has an article in English Wiki, another one in Greek Wiki, both of those are members of parliament. Anastasopoulou is not even member of local governing body. T*U (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I agree with you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakisA1 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a member of the organizing council of a political party can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about her work in that role to clear WP:GNG for it, but it's not a role that guarantees her an article just because a list of the entire council and her own self-published "staff" profile on the website of the political party technically verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a member of a party council other than a controlling party in a one-party country is almost certainly not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user agreeing with TU-nor's nom may be a self requested deletion. Oh, and also per above DeleteEddie891TalkWork 19:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN. As far as I'm concerned sourcing is not existent. Two sources are "Minutes, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders" without a giving a date that's not even verifiable and the second is called "Second Middletown Town Book" which is something I cannot find any record of existing. Rusf10 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is not strong enough to make him a special case under NPOL #2 — that requires significant reliable source press coverage, not just verification of his existence in the county freeholder board's own primary source minutes of its own meetings. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this article, sourced only to primary sources, has existed for over 9 years, shows our review of articles is pretty lousy. To be fair, there are some articles I created back before I fully understood Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, mainly in 2007 but a few in 2008, that still exist and have no sources. I'll see what I can do about those.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Clearly a minor politician: local councillors are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable county politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. Also I'd consider this unsourced. The lone source is "Minutes, Monmouth County Board of Chosen Freeholders". For all we know its a made-up source, even if its not available online, the least they could have done was provide a date. Rusf10 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find much in my BEFORE beyond a genealogy and list-style coverage. There is a more notable fella with the same name ([46]) who lived in the same period who is not this guy. And there are a few mores - filtering down to name + Shrewsbury/Monmouth did not lead to much.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors. While I am able to find online mention of Minutes of New Jersey County Board of Freeholders at a later date (1850) Inventory of the county archives of New Jersey, Issue 15 ("Minutes of Board of Chosen Freeholders, May 10, 1850 (hereinafter cited as Freeholders' Minutes)"), I am unable to verify that Edmund Williams is mentioned in the Monmouth County's minutes at an earlier date in the 1789-1793 range. My general rule is to WP:AGF and point to WP:SOURCEACCESS in such cases, though I do agree the author should have supplied at least a date. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. County freeholder is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, and the sourcing is not strong enough to make him a special case under NPOL #2 — that requires significant reliable source press coverage, not just verification of his existence in the county freeholder board's own primary source minutes of its own meetings. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even if we had an accurate and complete source, we would still have the problem that it is a primary not a secondary source. What we need to justify this article is secondary source coverage from reliable source that is completely lacking. Not every head of the governing board of every county in the United States is notable. I just shudder at where that would take us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Reywas92Talk 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (also Hendrick Hendrickson). Both fail WP:POLITICIAN, being merely NN local politicians. Even chairman of councils are generally NN. No objection to redirecting, provided the redirect can be protectedfrom being reverted to a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gets some coverage in local news, but unclear if it's enough to meet the criteria for notability of people. Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In particular he is profiled in this book which seems to be an assembly of local heros of the neighborhood (not sure if this is elevated above the status of a local news source just because it has been published as a book). He has similar small profiles and passing mentions in some other books. Unclear to me if this all counts as "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources..." I think this is a borderline case and would be interested to hear the opinions of others. Ajpolino (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete He's active in his community, but I couldn't find any notability criteria for community activists. I couldn't find the significant independent coverage of him that shows me he meets WP:GNG. I find passing mentions and his name on some lists but that's not enough. It seems like there might be coverage out there, but my search didn't find it.Sandals1 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asides from the fact there are no sources (and haven't been for the past decade), this page doesn't seem notable. There don't seem to be many articles published relating to it. New Zealand is pretty indifferent to American Football, so this article seems to lack notability. — Tuxipεdia(talk) 07:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local amateur organisation with NO references would seem to clearly fail both NSPORT and GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 08:55, 19 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced except from organization's web sites. WP:ARTSPAM going back to 2013. Non notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this has the feel of a local church (probably NN) trying to be a denomination, perhaps due to a diaspora of members. Is this really notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but I am as a voice, crying in the wilderness. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. Excelse (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2018 (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.
For the record I created this article, however that was over 10 years ago. Back then I did not understand the need in Wikipedia to include references, and both my understanding and consensus on notability for politicians has changed since then. The current guidelines say that unelected candidates are rarely notable. In the decade the only sourcing shown is in coverage of one of his opponents. Not all candidates for the US house are notable, and Joseph does not seem to overcome this truism. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Foner 1993 and Suggs 1983 both have in-depth entries about him which allow for the article to be NOR, NPOV, and V. Many other sources provide more details. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So John Pack Lambert is saying that this reasonably relevant African-American civil rights activist from the 1800's should be deleted because "unelected candidates are rarely notable" despite having made the effort to write the article and it having stood for 10 years? I am suprised, but considering the diffrence between how the article looked when submitted to AfD and the current version I think it's pretty obvious that Smmurphy deserves some credit here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 19th century African-American history is my specialty on wikipedia, so while I would prefer the article not to have been submitted to AfD, I don't have an opinion on whether Johnpacklambert should have been able to find the sources and improve the article himself and was happy to make a contribution last night (which I was too tired to properly copy-edit, for what its worth). Smmurphy(Talk) 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smmurphy's improvements and sourcing. Seems he did quite a bit more, that was covered, than just failing in his election bid. I commend JPL's integrity in nomming an article he himself created, which I agree did not establish notability (in text and in sourcing) prior to Smmurphy's improvements.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) missing not fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's true that we don't keep unelected candidates just because they were candidates per se, an unelected candidate can sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons that would get them kept under other inclusion criteria besides NPOL itself — and Smmurphy has done a very creditable job of substancing and sourcing this into a much stronger and more keepable article than it was even at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw The article clearly establishes notability. It did not at the time I nominated it, and the fact that so few sources had been identified in the decade plus of the article existing made it seem unlikely it would be. I have to object to the misuse of the english languge in the above discussion. "themself" is not a word, it clearly should be "himself" and I take offense at the abuse of the language in such a wrong-headed way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no offense was meant. I've switched the pronown. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The next step is to create an article on Jack Turner (politician) who as the subject of a scholarly publication would seem to be clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the exception proves the rule. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and remove stub tag). While the subject does not meet the criterion of being elected, he appears to have been a significant human rights campaigner and seems notable for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (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.
Yet another geonames "locality", not a town, with nothing in particular at the coordinates. Also seems to be spelled "Qori Xabaalan".Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious. The US military seem to think it is something, but naturally it's unclear what they were looking at when they entered it into their database, maybe some tents? No idea. There may have been some citogenesis also. However there is a real town called Gori Rit[51][52] right next door that has no article (yet). So perhaps just rename it, this current title is probably erroneous. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the UN map I'd be willing to have an article on that, but first we need to go through the other articles to see if it hasn't been created with some slightly off name. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see anything else nearby save this which would seem to be another patch of named desert with an article on Lsjbot-wiki. I filled out wikidata:Q49256213 for Gori Rit. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do see there is a real nearby population center called Gori Rit and support having an article about it, I just don't thing that is what this title is referring to. There are frequently multiple Latin spellings of non-Latin character names, but "Qorixabaalan" just seems too different from "Gori Rit" for them to be the same. --Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes this AFD should ignore the above evaluation by oakshade since its obvious he has no idea what he's talking about. In the Somali transliterations the letter Q and G are often interchangeable. Therefore the first four letters are the same. The only difference is what follows. In fact, I'm surprised so many people comment on Somali-related issues while simultaneously being clueless about anything Somali-related. Since the two places are more or less the same it should be renamed Gori Rit imo. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew the English "q" is frequently substituted for "g" in Arabic words. Is "-xabalaalen" interchangeable with "rit"? And why are coordinates attributed to Qorixabaalan's location miles away from Gori Rit? --Oakshade (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Somali and Arabic are two totally different languages. I speak both fluently. Secondly, yes, xabaalan and rit are interchangeable since the names mean roughly the same thing. Gori rit means "put down weapon". Qori xabaalan means "buried weapon". So yes, a name change to Gori Rit is in order. As for coordinates, that can always be manually changed. 92.19.179.136 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename As it appears to be referring to a notable location per WP:NPLACE, albeit by an alternate name. Smartyllama (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite OK with an article about the other name, but it's at a completely different location as well. I did not find another name which could be matched with this, so I think we're good to go for the move/rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2018 (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.
I argued against the deletion of this article over a decade ago, but I have revisited it, and no longer believe that it can survive in accordance with Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. The article remains a mix of several unrelated ideas for which the available sources are poor and anticipated better sources were never found. I would now delete. bd2412T 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment Almost all hits for this clearly mean what is more commonly called polytheism. I need to take a little time looking at the cites, but my sense is that using it to mean multiple, non-intervening deities is a coinage which hasn't really caught on. Possibly merger is the solution. Mangoe (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge and redirect would be an acceptable solution, if there is enough content to justify mentioning this in Polytheism. bd2412T 12:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article only demonstates that a very few people have ever advocated the idea, and some of them clearly never by name. It is not a widely studied or accepted idea and shows no sign of meriting its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, the presentation of the ideas in this article is a bit off, but it can certainly be improved, whether in this article or at the Polytheism article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2116 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge a brief description of the concept into the polytheism article. I couldn't find anyone who supports actually takes a polydeist position, save a parody facebook page. Alex (Talk) 20:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a potentially valid notability claim here as artistic director of a theatre company, but that's not an automatic inclusion freebie — he has to be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNGfor that, but the referencing here, which is dependent primarily on the self-published website of the theatre company itself and a piece of his own writing in an academic journal, is not getting him there. And furthermore, part of the article is an advertorialized promobumf for his most recent play (or at least the most recent one that anybody's bothered to add here at all — there's been at least one new play since then, according to Google.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better, and write it more neutrally, than this, but this as written ain't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can’t find any reliable source. Non notable.. HelloDolly89 (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Lee, this is far WP:TOOSOON. Even the reddit that they source only has 136 subscribers-- there's absolutely no coverage, notable or not, about this that I could find anywhere in the usual searches. Nomader (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a real concept of "work content" which has to do with people doing things, and which has nothing to do with what the article says— and the text of the article never uses the term it is supposedly explaining. In short, WP:TNT for the redlink. Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is just an group of statements and equations about various aspects of energy and thermodynamics which are better stated on their respective pages, so a merge is unnecessary. I don't recall ever hearing the term 'work content' being used in this context, so a redirect would not seem to be useful. Agricolae (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS does not have any specific guidance for darts nor is there notability guidance at WP:DARTS so WP:GNG applies without any presumption of notability. I see no indication that this person passes WP:GNG. There are a few passing mentions on the web and he shows up on darts stats sites but that is not sufficient. Nor has he won any major tournaments from which he could derive notability. A single article discussing his debut is not sufficient. Jbh Talk 05:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPORTCRIT suggests that a sports figure is likely to meet WP:BASIC if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level; which North, as a competitor at the 2018 PDC World Darts Championship, has. Furthermore, North has received coverage, both about him as an individual ([53][54][55]) and as coverage of his performances in professional tournaments, including reaching the final of one tournament ([56]) and qualifying for a number of major tournaments ([57][58]) OZOO(t)(c) 11:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though just barely enough. He's appeared in tournaments where all the participants are generally notable, and the coverage OZOO found is enough for me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs identified by OZOO are OK, those in the article not. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2018 (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. Although I have not much sympathy for those who think WP is a newspaper and should have articles on any recent event, there obviously is broad consensus to keep this for now. Whether anything should be merged can be discussed on the respective talk pages. Anybody wanting to revisit this in 6 months is, of course, welcome to do so, although in my experience this rarely happens if a movement fizzles (see the whole slate of "Occupy" articles that nobody ever edits any more). Whether that will happen with this movement is impossible to say at this point, of course. Randykitty (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:ORG. This article could be merged in its entirety to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article. It fails to meet the criteria for extensive coverage and has certainly not made any kind of lasting impact as yet. Veggies (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT based on substantial international coverage in independent reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 02:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly Notable and plenty of RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Plenty of RS coverage, making international news. Jdcomix (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good references form excellent sources. Emma Gonzalez should probably be merged here.104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already notable and plenty of significant independent coverage outside of a regular news cycle. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but know that this will need to be revisited in 6 months or so, when notability will be clearer, as will our perspective on whether merging the material makes sense going forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Early days still but with similar comparative grassroots movements like the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that are this newsworthy and probably historic, the page is valuable and should stay. -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per notability guidelines. CookieMonster755✉ 22:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, lots of coverage right now. But long term impact is yet to be determined. I think E.M.Gregory has the right idea to revisit it in 6 months and see if there is still lasting notability. PackMecEng (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. TOOSOON is not Wikipedia policy, but WP:RAPID is. --Jprg1966(talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's clearly a SNOW KEEP. Will someone please close this? --- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, revisit when it falls apart, having accomplished nothing (if anyone remembers). It's a fine place to store all the stuff that would otherwise disproportionately blow up the main article. InedibleHulk(talk) 11:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, this article seems to have legs (in widespread coverage) for the time being. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and lots of WP:RS in the article. The argument that it is WP:TOOSOON is downright macabre in these circumstances. Darkest TreeTalk 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has made the national and international news multiple times. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turkmenistan men's national junior ice hockey team[edit]
Delete until they make their debut in an international tournament. Though I find the accusation that I am an "editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations" somewhat offensive and uncalled for. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Completely uncalled for in fact, but not unusual from this user. He just copies that comment indiscriminately onto deletion discussions since it was made about him so don't take offense. We kept the UAE article for 4 years before they played an official game so I am not sure what the hurry is here, but I don't disagree with deletion yet. They have international club matches but I can't find any detail of national team matches. I suppose recreating in April if they register to compete is not a big deal, but I would like to try some foreign language searches before voting.18abruce (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until they actually ice a team this is WP:CRYSTAL and haven't really seen any references that would indicate notability either. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having a functioning junior system with international tournaments, I could find no evidence of an actual national team, only club teams.18abruce (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (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.
Comment: full marks for the pun in the label name though, for anyone who speaks Spanish. Richard3120 (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soziedad Alkoholika, the band who formed the label, and whose records form the majority of Mil A Gritos's output. There are some passing mentions of the label from Spain's El País newspaper [59], [60], but not much else. Only two other acts on the list of the label's roster have articles, both of which are unsourced and of dubious notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article, proposed for merge for a full year without any actual consensus being established either way, which consists of a single statement that the topic existed, followed by one of the biggest reference bombs that I've ever seen: fifteen separate references, each directly quoting enough of the source's content that it's dancing right on the edge of the line dividing "fair use" quotation from outright copyright violation, is a lot more than we need to support a one-sentence substub which just says "this topic existed, the end". I'd have no objection if a merge consensus were actually established here, although I'm personally in the delete camp because there isn't really anything to merge, as the content here isn't saying anything that isn't already in Orlando, Florida — but the original merge discussion has been going on too long without being resolved, so it's time for a quorum call. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the references could be useful to someone writing a history of music in Orlando, but the current article is worse than useless. The one sentence in Orlando, Florida#Local culture is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete maybe some of the material might be useful, but having tried to search this umteen ways, there's just no such thing, not under this name at any rate. This is just something someone made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like a verifiability and notability problem. This article is visually incredible to see the citation content vs. the article content, it clearly is not what Wikipedia is intended to look like, and a sign that notability cannot be met despite great efforts. Orlando's Summer of Citation: One sentence article and an army of lengthy notes..--Milowent • hasspoken 16:38, 23 February 2018 (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. MBisanztalk 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable sporting event. It was an amateur boxing event between Youtube celebrities. The only non-social-media references are to "Metro" [61], and that seems to be purely a gossip rag. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DISPUTE
Disputing the deletion nomination as the page contains other reliable news sources such as The Sun, The Times and The Daily Mail and the fight is notable due to its viewer count and its betting interest.
Check references section, they have been referenced during the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMasterGuru (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed section header from above comment.Mattg82 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, The Times did cover it. Furthermore, with more than 20 millions views (beating domestic views of the Wimbledon final according to The Times) [8] it is a notable event.JohnRoads (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this comment because the history of this page shows the only edit with that timestamp was by TheMasterGuru, which means this is a case of him supporting his own vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxing match between non-notable boxers. As suggested by nominator WP:GNG is not met.PRehse (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Sun and The Daily Mail? Doesn't that say it all? Rhadow (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2018
Keep - While yeah, completely amateur and really just for YouTubers, this event still has generated a lot of interest and coverage, just look at the amount of hit one gets on google or bing when looking up this fight. If not kept than I would suggest a partial merge or redirect. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The number of ghits is not an indicator of notability (see WP:HITS) and I'm not buying the attempt to insinuate this was a bigger sporting event than the Wimbledon final. As I said below, I can go with a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight wasn't on TV, so no ratings numbers to compare it to Wimbledon. End of the day; this was your average Golden Gloves-type amateur bout for a pretend title that a Mayweather-type name isn't going to compete for anytime soon, except between two YouTubers. Nate•(chatter) 05:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute -- The definiton of notable is "worthy of attention or notice" and seeing as this fight has combined views of over 28,000,000 (check KSI[9] and Joe Weller's[10] channels to confirm this) I think this qualifies as worthy of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMasterGuru (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Things are simulcast all the time on multiple channels to milk the ratings numbers. Again, that's literally just a counter without sourced metrics. It wasn't televised or Nielsen-sourced, thus the number could be 'after the fact' streams or F5'ed bots milking the numbers upward from the reality. Nate•(chatter) 22:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is nothing significant about this fight. WP:NEVENT says a notable event is "of lasting significance", has "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group", and receives significant in-depth coverage "beyond a relatively short news cycle" from a "diversity of sources". I don't see that this fight has any of those, much less all of them. I can see no reason for this event to have its own article. I don't have a problem with a redirect to an article on the individuals. It's already covered in detail in KSI's article. I see Weller does not yet have a WP article and this event is not enough to show he deserves one. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just added some coverage from more sources in the Further Reading section; hopefully these can be incorporated as references for the article. Umimmak (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how this is a notable event and I believe the coverage is still problematic. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete All the youtube sources in the world don't make this a notable event. Doesn't pass the GNG or WP:NEVENT. The fact that two youtubers fought doesn't make this notable. And what's with all these dispute votes? Sandals1 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (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.
Not a public figure and doesn't meet any notability guideline. Having won several non-notable awards such as "The IET Young Woman Engineer of the Year" doesn't make her notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article initially did not have enough sources but upon searching for her name, she has been widely covered in many newspapers and notable places including a profile in The Independent for winning the Institution of Engineering and Technology Young Woman Engineer of the Year award in 2007.[11] She's been noted as an influential woman in engineering in several newspapers as well as BBC News.[12] She has also won significant engineering awards from the Women's Engineering Society and the NICEIC. I have fixed up the article and added those citations. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
^Cordell, S. A. (2005). Women's liberation movement. In W. Kaufman, & H. S. Macpherson (Eds.), Britain and the Americas: culture, politics, and history. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. "Also known as “Second-Wave Feminism,” the Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM) was a grassroots movement"
^Evans, Kathy M.; Kincade, Elizabeth Ann; Seem, Susan Rachael (2011). "Feminist Therapy: Roots and Branches". Introduction to Feminist Therapy(PDF). SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 4.
^Freeman, J. (1998). Women's liberation. In W. P. Mankiller (Ed.), The reader's companion to U.S. women's history. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin."Women’s Liberation was the early term for the feminist movement that began in the 1960s. The popularity of the term declined after a few years because some used it to ridicule the movement."
^Women's liberation movement. (2013). In J. Myers (Ed.), Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements: Historical dictionary of the lesbian and gay liberation movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. "The name given to the second wave of feminism, since its goal was to liberate women from the political, social, cultural, and economic oppression of sexist patriarchal society."
^The Women's Rights Movement (2007). In C. Brennan, K. J. Edgar, J. Galens, & R. Matuz (Eds.), American Social Reform Movements Reference Library (Vol. 2, pp. 373-405). Detroit: UXL. "The women's rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s sought significant improvements in women's legal, economic, and political rights. The changes brought about by the women's rights movement, also known as the women's liberation movement, have affected nearly every aspect of women's lives, including education, marriage, reproduction, work, and health."
Keep as the article has been improved by the addition of extra reliable sources, the BBC reference is good sig cov, now passes WP:BASICAtlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable. awards such as her award are evidence of just being a beginner. This is a perverse use of gNG. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states that notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That has been accomplished here as Deacon is noted and significantly covered in BBC News, The Independent, and several newspapers. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO states that a person is notable enough for an entry if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor." She received an award from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which is the largest multidisciplinary professional engineering institution in the world. WP:ANYBIO also states that a person is notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Deacon has been specifically noted for influencing the engineering industry.[1] Any one of these factors would be enough to make Deacon notable enough for an entry, and with all of them together it is well established she is notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources added by Lonehexagon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:TOOSOON a topic might fail notability requirements if the contents of the entry are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" or that verifiable sources don't exist yet. Do you have an issue with any of the sources? Why do you believe she fails WP:GNG? Lonehexagon (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC. References has been improved since nom. Mentioned in several noted magazines etc. Any other strawman argument about the references is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2018 (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.
Keep -- The article is whitewashed and missing all the best sources because, I'm guessing, the author doesn't want to talk about the fact that Trimble was gay. Not only was he gay, but he and Gore Vidal were lovers and Vidal wrote about Trimble throughout his life and career both in his memoirs and, in a fictionalized account, his novel The City and the Pillar. Vidal dedicated a number of novels to Trimble, i.e. "J.T." Vidal used Trimble as the subject of writing assignments in classes he taught. Search for sources in Google scholar under "jimmy trimble" vidal, e.g., or in Google for vidal palimpsest trimble and you'll see a hint of what this article ought to be. Since notability is determined by the sources rather than by the (admittedly sorry) present state of the article, it's clear that this article must be kept (and thoroughly rewritten). 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
solved. As a collaborative effort, other editors can add information considered important but not added originally, whatever the reason. I added it, including references from notable sources. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of articles about Trimble online... and the article should be expanded with more info such as suggested by the editor above. Spanneraol (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
and if you found the sources, there is no reason you shouldn’t add them yourself. Save others from duplicating your search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work, but seems to pass GNG. Alacrity25 (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not memorial. The tone "When told of Trimble's death, General Erskine was reported to have been "moist-eyed' is that of a sentimental memorial, not an encyclopedia article. Coverage such as the onestely nothing that could have substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gore Vidal I don't see that he meets any sports notability standards. I see one good reference but that's not enough to meet the GNG. His biggest claim to notability is his relationship and impact on Vidal.Sandals1 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG. Plenty of good refs available.BabbaQ (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. It appears that folks on both sides of the argument critically looked at the references and came up with different opinions J04n(talk page) 15:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Non-notable match. GiantSnowman 08:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. There is always another great match, if there wasn't there would be no point watching. Szzuk (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs as pointed out in a conversation below are much better than I'd imagined. Szzuk (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even nearly 15 years later, this match is still referred to as one of the greatest in FA Cup history. City weren't the team they are now, and to come back from 3 goals down, while it isn't unheard of, is pretty bloody rare. – PeeJay 10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst this match gets a little sustained coverage as a "great comeback", this seems to me to be almost always in the company of over "great comebacks". I'm not really sure I am seeing the required level of significant, sustained coverage of this match as an event on its own to satisfy GNG and counterbalance WP:NOTNEWS. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the key issue here is there is not enough to suggest lasting notability. The game did not have any significant impact on that season's FA Cup or other competitions. While it is occasionally mentioned as a great comeback, so are plenty of other matches (eg Portugal North Korea in 1966) and I do not think there is enough sustained coverage of the match to warrant an article of its own. Moreover there is no evidence it has become any more notable since it was deleted in the past. Dunarc (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is always down to the citations provided and there are 29 of them, most of the citations are provided by the major UK news services of the day. This is inherent for GNG which I was say provides a strong case. Yes single games can have a wealth of coverage, but it's down to the legacy of said game. My first verdict would be to keep this. If an admin comes along and thinks otherwise, the other alternative is somehow merge some of this content and redirect to 2004–05 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season as to not loose the importance of the game as a historical perspective. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't go into how I believe that this is notable and is not WP:NOTNEWS because as the article creator I feel it should be obvious that I believe it's suitable for inclusion. What I would like to ask those who have voted, however, is what criteria they are using to judge this article? Or to put it another way, when no-one has ever really agreed and put down in writing what is notable in an article then can this AfD be seen as a fair trial, or is it not something of a scattergun approach with everyone voting according to gut feeling and personal bias? Would a better test of public opinion not be to establish a consensus first and then come back to judge individual articles afterwards, especially since I would suspect that the majority of people who patrol the AfD debates would likely consider themselves Deletionists and therefore this AfD is likely to produce something of an inherent bias anyway? Falastur2Talk 22:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it is combined with a specific result (such as winning a trophy), it is just too subjective, for example I think county cricket is hugely entertaining and could think of dozens of matches which for entertainment value alone are deserving of a page (I could also reference them), do you see the problem? The article looks good so it has more chance than most matches of this type. Szzuk (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do I see the problem? Honestly, I don't. I disagree that great football entertainment doesn't translate unless it combines with a specific result (I feel that idea devalues the entire existence of the game) but that is inconsequential because I don't believe that this game is notable for being entertaining. I believe that it is notable because a team on a poor run of form coming back from a three goal deficit to win outright, in regular time, away from home, having been reduced to ten men while still three goals down, constitutes one of the more remarkable comebacks in football and the fact that it has continued to receive recognition for that in the press only serves to reinforce my belief. I also believe that it is no less notable than several dozen other match articles which exist on Wikipedia, yet none of which have ever been AfDed. It's this clear lack of consistency that leads me to question whether we should not be formulating policy first and then AfDing afterwards. Falastur2Talk 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The key to keeping articles of this kind is highlighting the enduring notability of the match, if the match has been noted in reliable sources since then, for example 2009, or 2013, then bring them to this AfD. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Szzuk: Have you even looked at the citations on the article, as 3,4,5,13,16,18,19 clearly are far from 2004 where they are articles referencing the game as a historic comeback. I really don't understand why people don't even look properly at the article and come to a conclusion this conclusion, all the delete votes have failed to spot the historic inclusions and are disregarding pure GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to help, because the odds of this getting deleted are so high I agreed, so having a pop at me is a little unfair. I don't have time to read 29 references. So now you know what is wrong with the article, it reads like any other match summary. I'm unsubscribing from the thread say what you will. Szzuk (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read the refs and have changed my vote accordingly. Szzuk (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To give an example, some years ago I watched my team win 4-3 after being 3-0 down with only 19 minutes left. Some of the match reports from that game refer to various flavours of amazing / greatest comebacks, a "...will be talked about for years to come" etc. Yet I doubt if anyone bar supporters of the two teams involved will even remember it. It was the second time in 7 years that we had won from 3-0 down as well, and I doubt if many people remember the first one either even though it was a Premiership game. In the case of this one, even though there was some journalistic hyperbole there isn't a source about the game that's less than 7 years old, one of those only rates it as #38 in the "50 greatest FA cup games", and even the list of "great FA Cup comebacks" only rates it as #6. Whilst it was an eye-catching game, we simply can't create articles for anything that catches a few headlines at the time. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect, BK, if it had only had headlines at the time, I wouldn't have made the article. I only decided to put the article up because I felt that the sources I found were of sufficiently long time after the game to label it notable. Yes, the sources I have listed are several years old, but at the same time they date from multiple years after the game. In fact, several of them date to attempts by newspapers to tabulate the greatest games of the last decade, so what is to say that at least one or two of them will not do another "greatest matches of the last 20 years" at the end of this decade, and include it again? And if that happened, would it not therefore become notable again by your logic? But Wikipedia policy states that topic are either permanently notable or permanently non-notable, so this can't be the case. This is why I say that we need to agree on what exactly constitutes match notability here first, because no-one has ever defined it and consequently everyone is just making up their own ideas and claiming that their version is more right than anyone else's (and yes, I am perfectly aware that applies to me too).
Oh, and just as a signing-off comment - I actually was inspired to make this article because I heard a match commentator for a TV station I don't recall specifically reference this game during an FA Cup match back at the turn of the year which I don't believe had anything to do with City. The people who are paid to talk about the game do still remember this game to this very day as a peak example of a comeback, it's just that it's generally referenced verbally, not in print. Falastur2Talk 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Falastur2, as far as I've been able to determine, this was not the first time you made the article; you also created the last iteration of the article in 2010, which was deleted as a result of this AfD. Is that correct, and what has changed since then that makes it more notable? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: In my opinion the AfD last time shouldn't have been closed the way it was, that many admins would easily of closed it to no-consensus reached. As with every article, it's all about establishing GNG first. For single games in a season the rules aren't truly clearly defined. Every game could be tagged as historic, but what we are establishing here is how historic is the game. It's nature towards what happened on the pitch, the flow of the game, then establishing the historic context of why said game stands out. Every time Tottenham face Manchester City this game is now always mentioned on the media pack that the clubs give to the media for background context for the rivalry. This in turn is often picked up upon in game commentary, then that returns back out in news sources as Greatest comebacks. This will in turn lead people to look up the game on the internet and then what is wrong with having an encyclopaedic page for this? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, the first time this was at AfD in 2009, the decision was to merge to the 2003-04 FA Cup article. It may not help now, because a merger has already been done, but it's clearly a reasonable suggestion to make when individual Cup matches are being considered here. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: That's partly why I questioned Hko's merge suggestion, there is already a bullet-point paragraph regarding the game, you can't add anything else, all the context of this article would then be lost. It's not just me questioning some of the delete arguments PeeJay is also myth'ed by suggestion of WP:NOTNEWS as a deletion rational, and simply saying delete Non-notable match here is not a good enough rational. I find that people need to provide clearly arguments for deletion. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@BlueMoonset: The easiest way to answer your question is to link you directly to a copy of what the article looked like the last time it was deleted, so please see here, which is what I had salvaged just before the delete. It should be fairly easy to compare and contrast, but basically the old version was undersourced, the match report section genuinely was pretty much a journalist's impression of the game (complete with POV, non-neutral descriptions), it was padded with quotations from various persons recorded at the time (granted I originally left this in on the new article but it was swiftly deleted and I ultimately agreed with the action) and lacked an Aftermath section. There is pretty much no section of the article I haven't cleaned up. I think I've put in somewhere between 6-8 hours work into this article to update it from the old version, although granted much of that was related to working on the citations. Falastur2Talk 17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Black Kite: Sorry to bring you back into this, BK, but regarding your comment that there has not been a single source mention this match less than seven years old - in some of the most propitious timing I have ever witnessed, FourFourTwo have just posted another article on their website listing, and I quote, "8 (genuinely) brilliant FA Cup replays that prove they're not always chores", and this game was top of the list. Just for the record, three out of the eight games predate the Premier League era, so it's not entirely recentist either. You can read the article here. Falastur2Talk 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to 2003–04 FA Cup and protect Wikipedia is not a new report. Although this match is notable, but it is unnecessary for an article because it is not a Final match. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reply@Hhhhhkohhhhh: new report or news report? I really don't think a merge or redirect to the 2003-04 FA Cup article is going help, you're going to loose the context of the game as the current FA Cup article doesn't provide match reporting. It would be better directed else-where, but the amount of content on the current article is a decent size, so how and where would one merge it too? I don't mean to be rude, maybe you could rethink the outcome? Govvy (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with this. The article is encyclopaedic in tone for the most part. The description of a match may read like a news report, but the lead and the Background and Aftermath sections are perfectly valid. I don't understand this objection. Furthermore, you acknowledge that the match is notable. If it's notable by Wikipedia standards, it should have an article. – PeeJay 13:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to say that I progressively rewrote the match section not once but three times in order to progressively neutralise the tone and make it less of a news report. Honestly I can't think how I could further describe the details of the match in order to describe the nature of the game and why it became notable without talking through it in a chronological fashion. The only other ways I can see to write about it would be to either A) try to write an analysis of the game, which is even less encyclopedic and borderline WP:OR or B) to describe the game only in broad terms, pretty much sweeping all of the descriptions of the goals into one or two sentences, which would result in an incredibly short section which completely devalued the article and ironically would risk making it seem non-notable. If you can see another way here then please do let me know and I will seriously consider it. I have to assume that this whole discussion is based on that one section, because none of the other sections are even vaguely news-like. Falastur2Talk 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Re: should this be merged? I can't support that view personally, as this article is too big to merge into the FA Cup season article without substantially unbalancing it, and requiring a massive re-write of that article too. The only way I could see merging working is by cutting out 80% of the content, to reduce it to a single section, but then I guarantee it would rapidly be deleted by other users who would argue that individual games should not be given their own paragraphs. Falastur2Talk 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will review my view later. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was merged before, and the resulting paragraph has stayed intact since 2009, so the above argument doesn't hold up against the evidence. A new paragraph based on today's article could be crafted to replace the one now in the season article, if desired. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe this match is notable enough for a standalone article. Number57 13:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Number 57: Could you kindly comment on what you believe defines a notable match? As you can see from the above, there is basically no agreement on this topic whatsoever, and most of the people voting to delete have totally different concepts of what kind of match qualifies as the minimum includeable, so I'd quite like to tease this out here. Falastur2Talk 19:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a notable match is one which is the first of its kind (e.g. the first international match) or one in which some kind of record has been set. The one in question was undoubtably highly entertaining (I watched it in a bar with one of my best friends, who is a Spurs fan), but there's no way it's worthy of being turned into an encyclopedia article. Number57 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your personal interpretation, but my point is, what you have just commented is not what anyone else here has said. Literally everyone has come here with a totally different impression of what notability is defined as. In that situation, I'm not sure how an AfD can be considered valid. We're not examining this article against agreed standards, we're just scattergunning it against the random opinions of those people who actually turned up to comment. If we conducted this AfD again in 6 months' time, we would get a totally different set of opinions here. Is it not better to formulate a policy on what is considered notable before conducting AfDs? And if not, will you or anyone else who voted delete put AfDs against the many, many other articles which don't satisfy your criteria? Falastur2Talk 20:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily vote to delete any article that didn't meet the criteria I've mentioned. And turning your question on its head, would it not have been better to formulate a policy before you recreated an article that had already gone through two AfDs, neither of which had resulted in it being kept? Number57 10:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'll point out that one of the two votes actually voted to merge the article, which is closer to a Keep than a Delete. Secondly, it has been more than seven years since the article was last deleted, in which time there has been a growing number of match articles appear. I carefully examined what articles had already been published on the mainspace before I did anything, and decided that the evidence was that opinion was turning in favour of allowing such content. Then, because this was not enough assurance for me, I deliberately contacted PeeJay2K3, a far more reputable Wikipedian than myself who actually voted to delete these articles in the past, and he gave me his backing saying that he believed the article was now worthy - you can see his comments supporting keeping the article in this very debate. So I did examine the value of this article quite carefully before deciding to publish it. I didn't ask for a consensus on notability first because, primarily, I became convinced that one was not needed, but secondly because I considered my voice too insignificant in the community and I'd prefer that those whose voices count for more take on the mantle. I will point out, though, that I did attempt to raise a debate on this exact topic at WP:FOOTBALL shortly before this AfD was posted, and you yourself are the only one who responded to me, so I hope you understand why I don't consider myself capable of achieving this. Falastur2Talk 19:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of sources, but they're all general game articles; this article relies heavily on the match report of the actual game. Of the 29 sources: game reports (1 15), feature article immediately after the game (2), best comeback lists (3 4 5 17 18 19 20), unrelated to direct topic notability (other game match reports, et cetera) (6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29). Per events notability, general game sources are WP:ROUTINE. The feature article after the game is nice, but the ultimate question is whether a game is notable for being consistently included in best-of history lists? I don't think WP:DEPTH is there, and it certainly wasn't a notable game in the context of the tournament. The fact it was merged or deleted twice doesn't help the article's case as it's certainly not getting more notable over time. I'd recommend a merge, but there's already a small blurb on the FA Cup 2003-04 article, and I'm not sure where else to recommend putting it. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even by the standards of these supposed Somali towns, this one is poor. No hits in Geonames, no coordinates, no meaningful GHits. If it exists, this doesn't appear to be what it's called. Mangoe (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing on Google Maps, OpenStreetMap, Google Books, EBSCOHost. Created by a user banned in 2010 for sock-puppetry during an ANI discussion about creating unsourced geo stubs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons above. Couldn't even find anything on the Somali Wikipedia. [[63]] TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 23:00, 26 February 2018 (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.
