Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 September 26 September >

Purge server cache

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 Moving to General Mathematics (education) and then merge.. v/r - TP 15:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Mathematics[edit]

General Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title of this page is wildly inappropriate. It should at least be """ and even that is probably too general, so something like "Mathematics education in the USA" would be best (although an australian source has been added, so that part should be called with "Mathematics education in Australia". These articlea already exist. The reason I am suggesting deletion instead of a merge is 1. This page needs to be merged to 2 different places, and 2. Merging always leaves a redirect. The term General Mathematics should not, in my opinion, redirect to a page about mathematics education, in either the USA or Australia. Benboy00 (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the content of the article is very limited, and even if there weren't the problem of US and Australian maths education jammed together here, and if the title was more specific, this alone does not seem nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. TLDR: This page should be deleted, and bits of it copied to here and here. Benboy00 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, we would not allow a topic entitled History, Geography or English language to be occupied by an article on the school curriculum with that title in some schools, and adding the word general to the front does not help. If it is thought appropriate, it would either form a section of the main topic article, or one of its own as with Mathematics education. In this case, this is a clear case for deletion as a fork of Mathematics education. I agree that 'General education' should not redirect to an education article as there is no way of knowing that is what users might be looking for - most likely it would be the Mathematics article. --AJHingston (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I started the article because I could not find anything on the topic on Wikipedia. I first came across the term about a week or two ago and could not find its exact definition. I will be happy enough if the topic can be merged into another article, either general (he-he) math article or U.S. school math article in such a way that it were easily searchable. This means that at least it needs a separate subsection (I hope Wikipedia indexes section names, and I hope Google crawls section names too). The book that I linked to that uses the term was printed in 1941, so it is hardly news. As someone who obtained secondary and higher education outside the U.S. I did not know the term, but recently it became more relevant as I started to get interested in American education system. U.S. education is very fragmented and navigating one's way around it is quite complicated, so anything to help myself and other folks like me would be helpful. Mikus (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is used in college education as well, so renaming to "General mathematics in primary education" would not cover all the bases. Mikus (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Integrated mathematics. The type of math education program discussed in the article, that of mixing multiple math subjects in one class rather than having separate classes in algebra, geometry, etc. was called General Mathematics by Kenneth Brown in 1946, but today is more commonly called Integrated mathematics. I see no problem with a redirect, as it is a reasonable search term. If there are other common uses of the term General Mathematics, hatnotes or a disambiguation page could be created instead. As I understand it, integrated mathematics programs are the norm in most of the world and countries like the USA and Australia are just now catching up. This is very likely a notable topic. Update A move to a less ambiguous title before the merge and redirect would be a fine option. Perhaps a move to "General Mathematics (education)" as suggested by the nom, would be a good compromise. --Mark viking (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally think that it would be good to have the content here added to Integrated mathematics, but I think a redirect would be very problematic. A title of "General Mathematics" is very grand, and one would expect it to be an article on mathematics itself, or maybe a redirect to such an article, rather than a redirect to a page about a type of mathematics education. The reason I nominate to delete is that any other action, be it move (Wikidan61) or merge, will leave an inappropriate redirect. What would ideally happen is that this content is copied to Integrated mathematics, and then this page deleted. Benboy00 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do you propose to search for "General Mathematics" meaning a type of education program? At the very least there must be a subsection titled as such so Google and Wiki could pinpoint to it. Will it work without a separate page with such a title, and without a redirect? If yes, we might try doing that. Mikus (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, at the moment (when the article exists), searching on google for the phrase general mathematics does not show this page in the first five pages of results (for me). What does come up is the article on australian maths education mentioned earlier (and the article on general relativity). If there is a section in american maths education with the name general mathematics, that will probably come up too. Google is very good at what it does, and does not need a redirect to find sections of wikipedia articles. Actually, it wouldnt even need a section titled that, as in the australian article, it has no section with that title, just a bullet point, and yet it still comes up. I am not sure whether I think it should be an entire section in american maths education, but that is a discussion for a later date. Benboy00 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly sourced, and combines together very different educational systems from different countries. Mathematics Education is better handled elsewhere. -- 101.119.29.15 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a basic problem: 'General Mathematics' means different things to different people. There are dribs and drabs of references but not enough of anything to make an article on a single topic and throwing everything together in a single article would be just an indiscriminate mess. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic seems significant in the history of Mathematics education. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing. As and when the content has been restructured to the point that the title is just a redirect then the fate of the redirect might be considered at WP:RFD. Myself, I'd still want to keep it as a blue link. Warden (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that a merger has to leave a redirect from the original title, so the nominator's concern about merging is invalid. We have to maintain attribution to the authors of any merged content to comply with our copyright licence, and the easiest and usual way to do this is to keep the editing history behind a redirect, but if there is good reason not to have a redirect (about which I have no opinion yet) there are other ways to maintain attribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect" (bolding in source, not added). I took this to mean that there is a requirement that merging leave a redirect. From what I've read, If it does not leave a redirect, then it is not a merge (which is why I think that some (very little) of the stuff should be kept, but not merged). Benboy00 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would dispute the "always", but, even if we treat it as gospel, the redirect does not have to be from the current title of the article from which content is merged if a redirect from that title would be confusing or otherwise undesirable, as seems to be your objection. We can simply rename ("move" in the strange terminology used on Wikipedia) the article to a better redirect title before merging. And if we keep any of the content of this article in another article then that is, by definition, a merger. The issues with merging to two different places and with leaving a redirect are technical issues that can be overcome if the consensus of the discussion is to merge. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that moving and then merging would be a perfectly fine idea, but I thought it would be improper to suggest it at the start of an AfD. I'm not too clear on the range of allowed votes for AfD's, or even if there is such a thing, but if "Move and Merge" is possible, then that would be the desired outcome (for me). The problem with that, of course, is that we need to choose an appropriate title, and since this is clearly a contentious issue, there would need to be some vote of what that name should be, and of course we would need an admin to supress the move redirect. It seems a bit complicated, but I'm sure it can be done. Hopefully people will read this before they vote and if they agree, vote "Move and Merge". Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good idea. I've amended my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per James500's sources. There are BLP concerns and concerns about an over-dependence on primary sources. I've discounted two !votes which appear to be SPAs. Weighing this discussion, James500's rationale seems most convincing. v/r - TP 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Toeppen[edit]

Dennis Toeppen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources that cover this small business owner in substantial depth. The article relies on a mix of primary sources (company website + court document), sources that are about his company that already has an article, and sources like the NYT link that doesn't appear to actually mention him. The remainder are brief mentions. There is already an article on his business (barely notable as it is) and I don't see a need for a separate one on him. CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not worked on the Dennis Toeppen article, I have however spent some time previously working tirelessly on the Suburban Express article. I would be careful to ensure that few editors from that article begin to rain down on this AfD discussion. As CorporateM has suggested on the talk page, there have been a number of COI edits involving this subject. Verdict78 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this article has been edited by an SPA User:Gulugawa and a regular disinterested editor User:TheOriginalSoni. Verdict has not made edits to this page. However, since the company page has a long history of sockpuppets and COI editing, the closing admin would need to be especially careful looking out for that in "votes." CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM, the NYT article does definitely mention Toeppen. I'm not opining about whether the article should be deleted, though. Today at the article, I did remove a footnote to a blog, but am not sure whether to delete the whole article. The NYT suggests keep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that given the article subject's relation with his bus company and the relevant off and on wiki notoriety, the article should have been taken with extreme caution and it should have been checked in detail whether or not he fell under our notability guidelines. I do contend however, that there are more than a number of sources, particularly books, which talk in detail about his early years. In this context, as well as part of his bus company, I believe Dennis has been covered in sufficient depth to meet general notability guidelines. There are several sources referenced in the article which would prove the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question For the cybersquatting, were there more than the 2 court cases mentioned. The article says: "For example..." which is not good wording for negative information in a BLP. And does Internet Encyclopedia give actual sources for the companies for which it is given as a reference? If so, those should be cited. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The publications TheOriginalSoni mentions are based on Cybesquatting...not Dennis Toeppen. Additionally, his main notoriety comes from his bus company, which is already covered in depth on the Suburban Express wiki page.

12.238.238.104 (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have not edited this article, but I have contributed small edits to the Suburban Express article. The content on the Dennis Toeppen article is basically 1) already on the Suburban Express article; 2) describing the person's "cybersquatting" activities performed in 1995. As far as I can tell by reading the article, cybersquatting wasn't an illegal activity until four years later, so I'm not sure that info is even notable. HtownCat (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not independently notable. Current article on Dennis Toeppen reads no more notably than a BLP of someone who built a Bird house and went to Summer camp and happened to get in the newspaper for both. Suburban Express is notable enough, has an article, and on its fringes he comes up as founder/manager--but all that can be properly covered there. Similarly Cybersquatting is notable, but he's just a throwaway example of it. KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Please also go through the recent editing history of the company's article before judging the authenticity of the votes. The article has a long history of pro-company edits by (now blocked) sockpuppets and of late, it has recieved a similar trend of edits from editors, including Htowncat.
Regarding cybersquatting, I do not think it is appropriate for editors to judge notability of a person based on the legality of an activity. If there are sources talking about it, it's notable. Otherwise, it is not. My stance remains that there are sufficient sources about cybersquatting for the article to be kept, including in various books. [The bus company part makes no case for notability as the campany has an article of its own] Anyone closing this AfD should look through the number of sources available before making a decision on the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like KevinCuddeback stated, Suburban Express/Dennis Toeppen have attempted to manipulate sources/information on multiple pages via sockpuppet accounts as a means of self promotion...and this will continue. Additionally, the information here is already mirrored in great detail on the Suburban Express page. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re COI edits: If need be, the page could be fully protected so that only admins can edit it. James500 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Dennis Toeppen will have to have an article. There are simply too many books describing him as noted [1], notorious [2], famous [3], the most famous [4], the most infamous [5], well known [6], perhaps the best known [7], and a pioneer [8] [9] etc in relation to his cybersquatting activities. That doesn't sound like a throw away example to me. Just search for "Dennis Toeppen" in Google Books. James500 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chookaluh[edit]

Chookaluh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICDEF This page is purely about an uncommon english word, and it is not notable in any way, shape or form. Maybe the middle sentence could be added to the article for cajon. Benboy00 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as borderline WP:MADEUP. According to the article, it is Iowa City slang; possibly among the article's creator and his/her cohort. Cnilep (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claim of notability, and there is not even any source indicating that it is true.--Larry (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that this is essentially promotion for a cause. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Andrew Kantis[edit]

Dean Andrew Kantis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman and "anti-LASIK activist". Kantis has made a lot of noise about his poor LASIK surgery outcome, but the sourcing of this article is mostly primary (his own website, references to his own website on other websites, etc). What material there is in reliable sources is passing mention at best. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a problematic article. To the extent that he is noted, it is him talking about his LASIK complications... but the sourcing on even his LASIK complications is he himself. Normally, we would consider a person an WP:RS on the basics of their own health, but as he appears to have been in litigation regarding those complications, that would make them contentious and thus calling for a more reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Highly notable individual. he is one of the few voices out there who are speak in against a multibillion dollar industry which claims to hae 99% sucess rates. This is what wikipedia is about. I'be been reading his ioography and i am interested in this. So are million os other people who suffer from myopia. Pass a Method talk 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong delete-- let's make sure we cover the potential adverse affects of LASIK on that article, with sources that meet WP:MEDRS, but this individual does not seem to be notable. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...After a quick review of said page (LASIK), I did not go through each reference, but it seems that there is plenty of discussion about the potential risks. I think this page (Dean Andrew Kantis) is a WP:COATRACK, it's not about the individual as much as a place to badmouth this surgical technique in a controlled environment away from the other side of the argument. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- I also note a user called "Dean Andrew Kantis" has edited this page a bit (but did not create it at least). Might be worth pointing out WP:COI. Lesion (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- COI and advert tags were placed on the article, which were later removed after a few edits by the article's creator. Lesion (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect. A classic case of WP:BIO1E masquerading as a biography article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is unnecessary in this case. If they are not notable then they are not notable. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources other than a couple that quote Kantis on the topic of laser eye surgery. These fall way short of what is needed for an article about any person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an anti-Lasik coatrack at best, everything related to his advocacy is sourced to himself, we are not here to champion great causes. The notability just isn't there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a self-serving, self-written article by somebody who is notable only to himself. Who really cares where he went on his honeymoon and that as a child he liked beach volleyball??? I also question his notability when half of the introductory paragraph about him is about his Lasik mishap. I came across this article because he is trolling on freelance writer sites for someone to spread more vitriol on the Lasik site and to save his Wiki page. He is not Wiki material and his article should be deleted. On a lighter note - I had Lasik seven years ago and I couldn't be happier. Sorry that this gentleman had an adverse reaction to it but Wikipedia is not the forum for this vendetta.Jmasiulewicz (talk)
  • To be clear and accurate, while Kantis has edited this article, he did not create it, and the article had the needless material on his honeymoon locations and such before he was editing it. Not that that defends the article as a whole... --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rounding up a flash mob to try and save this bio article is taking conflict of interest to a new level. This is ban-worthy COI quite frankly, and easily qualifies for posting on the COI noticeboard. I therefore changed my "vote" to a strong delete. Also, more than one editor has raised concerns that the LASIK page itself gives undue weight to opponents to the procedure. Let's present the topic as an encyclopedia and not have a page which serves as a medium to people who shout the loudest. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all. My name is Dean Andrew Kantis. First, if LASIK is so safe, why is there so much controversy that has surrounded it since inception? David Muller ( Avedro's Collagen Cross Linking's CEO) CEO of the infamous Summit Technologies (who created and marketed LASIK, financed Ted Kennedy's re-election campaigns, how their lasers caused permanent corneal weakening, instability, and dry eye disease. David Muller, CEO of Summit Technologies, investigated in the America Investigates Series shown here: 

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXNN65PF_HA   (10 minutes)
Part Two:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9THraSVkOs   (10 minutes)
Part Three:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0hvMJsQyA    (10 minutes)
Part Four:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVVXeJVL3U   (10 minutes)
Part Five:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZS_eWRkdU  (5 minutes)
Part Six:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSWNuXrYPg (10 minutes)
Part Seven:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pTZ7Ffw9EE (10 minutes)

Second, please hold off your (consensus) vote until you see the Dr. Oz LASIK Warning that comes out in 2 days, on 10/3/13 at 3pm central time as explained here: (this is as current of news as it gets right?) http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/undercover-lasik-surgery-investigation . Second, my apologies for trying to upload a few pictures of the logos for each of my causes. As I surf through Wikipedia, I see pictures on most pages, so I'm not sure I understand why my pictures are "off limits." But no problem. Please google my name and YouTube my name. There are hundreds if not thousands of credible references about me and my anti-LASIK causes that are backed by solid facts and scientific studies. In fact, I was the one who got Dr. Morris Waxler out in Oct. 2009, he's the ex chief of medical devices that gave the FDA Approval for LASIK surgery, and is now speaking out against LASIK saying he was "tricked and deceived" and that the LASIK industry "cooked the safety studies" to get it through the FDA approval process. (This is a medical conspiracy and people who did it need to be arrested). In fact, here's the proof on a conference call with Morris when he said "WE FUCKED UP" approving LASIK at 18:30 into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nXI2QNat8 . Since, he's been on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS to name just a few media venues, explaining this. His petition explained this and was submitted on Jan. 6th, 2011 to the FDA. He has not had a reply from his own FDA to date, and he won't because they too are in on it and were placed in high positions of power by the industry to watch over profits, etc. Here's his petition calling for a Criminal Investigation: http://lifeafterlasik.com/LASIK%20Morris%20FDA%20Petition%20Jan%206%202011.pdf .

Here's an 81 minute powerpoint that Dr. Waxler presented in front of 3,000 Optometrists to prevent them from referring patients to get LASIK so they understand the known long-term damages: http://www.odwire.org/forum/content/175-The-Evidence-LASIK-Makes-Healthy-Eyes-Sick

I'm so dedicated to protecting you and your families from harm, that I produced a mini-film, "In The Blink of An Eye...A LASIK PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY," to explain all of this so that you would be spared from this incurable, dry eye inducing, not needed surgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtbxM-jUXA .

I've been interviewed over and over on tv about LASIK and how the industry lies, shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzqwzQo0Oc . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQD3b-cFZdA . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BUFkWdtVP0 .

Here's my petition filed on Jan. 5th, 2007: FDA-2007-P-0116 Dean Andrew Kantis Take steps to insure the safety of Americans regarding the misuses of Lasik 01/05/07 I was sued by my own LASIK doctor for speaking the truth about his 60 LASIK lawsuits and for warning the public: http://www.dmlp.org/threats/st-george-corrective-vision-v-kantis . I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the points. My name and what I have done for FREE to expose the LASIK industry is invaluable.

My petition to the FDA was submitted on Jan. 4th, 2007, which prompted the "EMERGENCY LASIK OPHTHALMIC DEVICE PANEL DISCUSSION" in Wash, DC on April 25th,, 2008 where 20 of us paid to go to DC and speak in front of the FDA and the industry's paid ASCRS forum, in order to beg them to help us, and other victims, and to redact the FDA LASIK APPROVAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTAHDLAwKkw .

If you had a good LASIK outcome, hurray! But please don't think that even after 3, 5, 10 years that you're in the clear. This is exactly what Dr. Waxler and Dr. Oz will be covering on his show in 2 days! People do not realize that your eyes get drier each year from this procedure touted as "safe and effective and FDA Approved." Please be open minded, thank you.

  • Comment This is not a discussion about whether or not LASIK is a safe procedure or not. This is a discussion about whether Dean Andrew Kantis is notable based on his campaign against LASIK. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep What is exactly wrong with someone telling the truth about their life? I have seen many pages on Wikipedia that are much more biased then this one. On a lighter note, This is a discussion about whether this persons page is worthy to stay on Wikipedia and somebody throws in how happy they are with your Lasik outcome in a DISCUSSION. How is that any different? It's actually worse. I'm sorry but I don't see a flash mob just a persons true story of their life. From what what I see is a few people with what seems to be a hidden agenda. You can find fault with just about any Wikipedia page page but certain people just keep pounding and pounding on this one which is the truth as I know as to what actually happened to this person. Dr. Oz might be a celebrity but like it or not he is a DOCTOR. Testifying before the FDA is not medical based evidence? My point is twofold. One if anyone can prove that anything on the page is lie or misrepresentation then show some proof of it. Certainly the article needs some editing, Mostly his personal life, but his Micro Jet Network is the truth as are his POST LASIK COMPLICATIONS. If you live anywhere near Chicagoland everyone knows what happened. Dean Andrew Kantis was one of the patients of a very disturbed Lasik doctor who is longer allowed to even be in the same room with a Excimer(Lasik) laser and because of that he became a strong advocate of Lasik patients that have been harmed. Is it biased? Maybe. Is it all the truth? Yes and he has all the references to back up what he put in the article. I see that a couple people in particular have issues with this article and yet when I look at their Wikipedia pages I see nothing of worthiness. Look at your own pages before you go after another one. You might find that they are pretty much useless in other peoples opinions and find yourself up for deletion. That is not a threat, it is just an observation. The people making the most noise have useless Wikipedia pages. The only "Flash Mob" is those people who call for its deletion. I find it worthy of Wikipedia but some of the people who are calling for a DELETE, their pages are NOT WIKIPEDIA WORTHY. The one almost put me to sleep. Should we DELETE Barack Obamas Wikipedia page because while truthful, people disagree with it? In that sense I agree with WikiDan61 wholly. Is it worthy based on Andrew Dean Kantises notability? I say Yes but also sense jealousy and hidden agendas to have it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibco65 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with that statement. This is the first but not the last time I will comment. I have no hidden agenda and do not watch a discussion page for comments , let alone look up whether people have commented before. So what's your deal Nat? Oh comic books at age 48, never mind. The Peanuts Collection? The Sun Times which is the new National Enquirer of Chicago? I would have an issue with a real article also then.Gibco65 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most important thing as NatGertler points out is that user Gibco has 1 contribution in their history (this discussion). If indeed they have registered as part of the external attempt to divert this discussion, then I believe the correct term is meat puppet, but I could be wrong. Third person singular aside, respectfully Gisco, by virtue of your recent registration I suspect, you are wrong in several ways and I am going to delineate them one at a time:
  • The factual accuracy of the person's life is not disputed, it is the person's notability for their own wikipedia article that is disputed. See above discussion for more details.
  • Pointing out bias on other articles is of no consequence to this discussion. I have every faith that said articles will improve over time.
  • Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all (depending upon what evidence scale you use) in evidence based medicine.
  • Dr Oz's opinion, who is a celebrity doctor and not an expert on LASIK, is therefore of no consequence. The only time I would consider his opinion a valid source would be on an article about celebrity doctors, which arguably is not medical content.
  • Accusing other editor's of hidden agendas is both foundless and against a core idea: WP:assume good faith. I speak for myself alone, but I want this article deleted because it is in breach of wikipedia policies, not for any other reason. People do not like it when their independent health care information is warped so it no longer represents reality. It is not a case of jealousy. See for example the Otto Placik controversy [10], a plastic surgeon who was banned for perverting wikipedia articles towards his own agenda. This (the LASIK page) is slightly different but the potential deviation from a neutral presentation of the topic is the same.
  • If you are talking about user pages when you say "nothing of worthiness", you are missing the point of user pages. There is no notability requirement before wikipedia users are granted their own page. An article in the main namespace (i.e. an encyclopedia article) is a different matter entirely. You are saying something akin to "all those insignificant people have boring facebook profiles pages, so this person should have an article in Britannica".
  • Comparison between this discussion and the USA president's article is not valid. Again I point out, this page is being disputed not for its factual accuracy, or because anyone disagrees with the anti-LASIK content, but because the person is not notable for their own page.
This whole incident has left me with a strong sense of unease at the accuracy and balance of the LASIK page. Lesion (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification sake, I will note that the complaining editor is not referring to a user page, but rather to Nat Gertler, a page about me that I did not create, and which is not relevant to this discussion (nor, should I note, is the LASIK page.) The comment on his post that he is complaining about is actually Template:Afdnewuser, which is a standard item to add after comments of new users in AFD discussions, helping other editors understand that the commenter may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards and practices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Agree that this discussion should not be about LASIK or the LASIK Wikipedia article, but it is raising questions in my mind about the neutrality of said article. I started a thread on talk:LASIK#Undue_weight_given_to_adverse_effects_of_LASIK where such discussion would be more appropriate. Lesion (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Puppet really? Let me retort to your accusations. 1) I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for many years. 2) You have continually attacked this persons page and have more opinions that are not based on facts on this discussion by far. When nobody comments you write another one. You have FOUR negative comments in a row that are without merit. You are obviously heavily biased and yet you comment "Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all". So then basically in simplest terms Jonas Salk is of no consequence to others. Albert Einstein, I could go on and on. 3) While I do not personally like Dr. Oz, he is an M.D. Are you? 4) The fact that you attacked my comments within an hour of posting does hint of hidden agendas. I was just stating my opinions which evidently I don't have a right to and you come after me like a shark comes after a bleeding seal. 5) You figured out whose page I was talking about Lesion. 6) Who made you two the Wikipedia police? Basically who lets you decide who is notable or not? Yourself? If that's the case I suggest you get a hobby. 7) For Nat: "Wikipedians who like Buffy"? Are you serious? You claim to be an editor and really Buffy and Angel? Lets get real. That is the page that should be deleted. It is useless. This isn't Facebook. I am sorry for not understanding that you did not put "Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)". Usually when someone's name is on a comment it just makes sense to assume that they put it there. 8) Lesion you should have a strong sense of unease. Wikipedia is just that. Wikipedia. It is an immediate "F" if quoted in a thesis or dissertation. It is to be taken with a grain of salt yet you have an inflated sense of self worth and the same for Wikipedia. Basically you do not like what this Dean Andrew Kantis is saying, that's all. It's plain and simple. 9) If you lived in Chicago and know what went on here and the Lasik "doctor" involved, you might have a little different opinion. How about many blinded because of deranged doctor? Really all you have to have to perform Lasik is an MD and a weekend of training. How about 50+ lawsuits? How about the guy who wrote the article is one? How about you are somehow related to said doctor because he even had the nerve to sue the people he blinded who sued him. Your unease over this makes me suspicious. 10) There you go again, starting a new thread because you are heavily biased against this persons or anyone else's opinions. Your hubris is disturbing.Gibco65 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibco65: I was not denying I was the one who put the template on your post, merely noting that what I put was a standard template used to help the other editors navigate the discussion, and not some form of attack on you. As a general guideline, I would suggest you review Wikipedia:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions, as that contains useful information on what is likely to be productive in these discussions. If you have concerns about what is on my user page, or just wish to continue to belittle me, may I suggest that that would be more appropriate at the talk page you'll find linked to at the end of this message; it does not serve to move forward the Article For Deletion discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibco, I suspect that your the account was never used for editing until you were summoned here from an external recruitment. meat puppet is not an insult, it is the term for people who do this. Further evidence of your new arrival on Wikipedia is demonstrated by SHOUTING and making personal attacks.
  • Conveying the tonality of a message is difficult in words alone. The tone tends to be assumed by the reader. For example, you interpret my behavior as like a "shark coming after a bleeding seal" and having hidden agendas. I can assure you that my words could also be read as calm, reasoned, polite and patient towards someone who is shouting and unfamiliar with how to behave on Wikipedia. It is all a matter of perspective. I believe because people are not face to face on the internet, there is a tendency for each side to paste on to the other the traits of their most hated enemy, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. I write on many medical topics, I have no interest in hiding controversy against LASIK, but only the to the extent that is realistic to the topic on a global basis. This is not the Chicago Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. It is for the entire planet.
  • I would point out that making 4 comments in a row is not a valid reading. Every comment is marked with a time stamp, and it can be seen that all those comments were made within minutes of each other. They were after thoughts as I came across more information that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
  • I am not biased, again I think this is something you have assumed. I want a neutral and accurate presentation of topics.
  • I ask you to truly ask yourself if you think your opinion is mainstream when you accuse others of having bias and then come out with slogans such as "How about many blinded because of deranged doctor?" When we edit Wikipedia, we leave our personal opinions and experience behind, and everything is based on reliable sources. We present topics in neutral point of view, giving due weight to each side of the argument.
  • If Albert Einstein could be quoted with coming up with his opinions on a surgical procedure, then yes this would not be of any consequence. Evidence-based medicine is about hard facts and statistics, not personal opinion.
  • It is not me who decides what is notable and what is not. Try reading this policy for an answer to this: WP:BIO
  • I do not have an inflated sense of self worth for Wikipedia. Look at some of the best medical content on wikipedia, GAs and FAs. They are actually better than most publications because they have been honed over many years by many different authors. They use on the highest quality sources, they present no personal opinion but instead present a realistic world view. One day most of our content will be like that. Instead I think it is you who have a deflated sense of worth for Wikipedia, again by virtue of your lack of editing history here. This is a common public perception of Wikipedia. I suspect you think it is entirely appropriate to present topics in a way that soothes your own world view. This is not the case.
  • I started the thread at the LASIK talk page because another editor agreed with me that it presented the article with undue weight. This discussion should not be about this. Let's keep focused on the issue here, that the subject of this bio article does not meet notability policy: WP:BIO. Lesion (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did call me a meat puppet and how can that possibly not be considered a personal attack? Because Wikipedia says is not an insult does not make it true. It was a blatant insult that's intentions were to get a rise out of me, plain and simple. I was prevented from posting a reply to your little rant. You seem biased to me and so does Nat. That being said, lets let the people decide if it is noteworthy instead of you two alone. I was not recruited, I have been using Wikipedia for about six years and did hear about this on the internet. Einstein was not supposed to be in my response but after following the instructions for posting it took 11 tries to post. That's childish and blatant censorship. By the time my comment went through it was the original unedited rough draft. Einstein was not supposed to be in the answer to your comment but Salk was. All I ask is this. Instead of you and Nat Gertler deciding on this, let some other non biased editors decide. You both have seem to have made up your minds a long time ago so either let someone impartial decide and recuse yourselves or you can continue with your excuse of being falsely accused of bias and not hurling insults. Meat puppet is an insult. I would also like to see this discussion a neutral and accurate presentation of topics. The truth of the matter is has not been. Maybe its the Chicago in me but not letting me post my comments and calling me names is not neutral. You can argue that to you pass out. I think the article warrants consideration, its notable, that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. It is my opinion and my opinion alone. You and Nat can come up with 101 excuses as to you are impartial but your comments speak for themselves. See: Common Sense. Let all the editors decide, this is childish and undermines Wikipedia. That's really all I want. I am no meat puppet nor have been recruited. I think the article with revision is worthy of Wikipedia. Now lets see if I am allowed to post this.Gibco65 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you took that as an insult then all I can say is that it was not meant to be. Again I ask you to consider that I do not have horns coming out of my head, and I do not have shares in a LASIK company or something. Re. your comments not getting posted, this may have been an edit conflict, and they can be confusing to deal with. It is not censorship, it's because of how the wiki software works. It will only keep one version of any page at a time. It just means that someone else has changed the page after you started to edit it and before you saved your edit. All the instructions for how to deal with edit conflicts are on the page that comes up, but it is not exactly easy to understand the first time you encounter them. I think it might move the discussion forwards if you stated exactly why you think this article is notable, or to counter the arguments posed above suggesting that it is not. To summarize all the reasons so far cited to delete the article, these are:
To clarify for Gibco65: neither Lesion nor I will be making the final decision on whether this page gets deleted; the closure of the discussion will come from another editor (likely but not always an administrator). That we (like most of the editors making their voices heard here) believe that the article should be deleted is not reason for us to be excluded from the discussion; an articles-for-deletion process would be rather weak if only people against deletion could be included. You can learn more about how an Article For Deletion decision is made at WP:CLOSEAFD I do recommend that you review that entire page (WP:AFD), as it covers this full process and gives you some tips on how you might state your positions more effectively. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I did take it as an insult but the thing that started my attitude was the fact it was pointed out that Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Evidently it might be the rules per say but it was edited on to comment exactly 20 minutes after I posted. To me that meant Nat was watching this AFD at the time. I personally did not think it was relevant hence my feeling that there was bias. Let me perfectly honest it regards to last night and the BS that transpired. I was not asked to write anything by anyone. I wrote what I wrote because it was my honest opinion. I did stumble upon it on the internet. I know that it meets the following criteria:

  • WP:BIO The guy does own a jet timeshare company and the family part is usually part of any article. He does champion the anti-Lasik cause. His one event was a tragedy that a lot of people up here are familiar with but because of that event he has a website, testified against in front of the FDA and a host of other things. Basically I think that meets the burden of WP:BIO, he is notable for more then one event.
  • WP:RS. His secondary source is the person who approved Lasik in the USA in the first place, Morris Waxler and the FDA hearing which many spoke at. It changed the way the FDA handles adverse outcomes.
  • WP:COATRACK I can't argue that one. He is one of the loudest voices in the anti-Lasik movement.
  • soapbox: I think that is the same as WP:COATRACK. That should be addressed with an an edit. Not everyone is savvy about writing an article.
  • WP:Advocacy While a rule really most articles advocate something. Wikipedia is far from neutral in that regard. I mean really that one is pretty vague and if followed most articles would be deleted.
  • WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) If that's the case I really don't when the user was edited in the past or why. Was it yesterday, last month or year? Does it pertain to this article? Basically if yes then OK it does not meet the criteria. I do not see that in this article. Yes he does go a little off and the Post LASIK complications section does need some editing.

I Emailed Wikipedia as to how to have my voice heard on this matter. They Emailed me back and told me how. I did this on my own. I wrote my reasons why the article is worthy and it seemed to me that since there were already snide comments, that they were acceptable. Then Bam within 20 minutes "Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD." Does that really make difference? At sometime everybody has to make a first contribution. It came from an editor and I really thought you were editors to help Wikipedia meet its guidelines and not to be outright biased. I was wrong and respect your right to vote and then add your comments. You don't have to be biased or rude about it though and that is the way you came across. Basically if the article needs editing to meet guidelines, you are editors. Help by offering your expertise in editing. I did have an edit conflict but think about it; if you had just butted heads with editors and all of a sudden you could not comment, you would think the same. I would not butt heads with some with horns. Nat Gertler : I did not realize that pointing out that someone has never commented before was a Wikipedia rule. To me it seemed like you were smarmy and just had to point out that I was commenting for the first time on something I feel is Wikipedia worthy. Yes I have strong feelings about this just as you guys do. Its just it seemed to me that you being in a position to offer advice on to edit the article in question was pretty much what I had read on the internet many times. Most of the editors are strongly biased and what happened last night let me to believe that. I apologize for getting extremely personal in my attacks against you, I was out of line. I was called a meat puppet. To me that was an outright insult but now I realize that it is phrase that editors use. For the record, I do not like puppets and eat very little meat. Seriously I know them as basically a punk band. To be called a meat puppet was akin to being called a punk. In closing I think the article with some editing should stay. That is my opinion and mine alone.Gibco65 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is, if we strip away all the non independent sources, then there is arguably not much left to base a biography article on. The sources need also be reliable, and discuss the individual in a degree of length, not just mention them in passing. Sources like these need to be removed imo:

So what we are left with is:

TLDR summary-- Dean Andrew Kantis is mostly known in specific circles for his opposition to LASIK. His notability to a general audience is limited to media coverage of a petition to the FDA. The article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, and there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss him in with significant coverage. A few sentences on the LASIK page would be appropriate, stating that a petition was submitted to the FDA, and with the background "an Anti-LASIK campaigner". I have not looked in detail at the LASIK page, but there appears to be undue weight given to anti-LASIK content. The creator of this page also has edited the LASIK page, which may indicate sourcing problems there too. Lesion (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright last time I'm chiming in on this AfD. If the sources were changed to reflect only reliable sources then would that make the AfD in question worthy of keeping with some other edits? In all honesty it's far from a perfect article. Many things need to be edited and clarified. If someone provided reliable sources and edited WP:COATRACK and soapbox would this article be worthy? This is more of a question then a statement. It passes the smell test to a great degree but as I pointed out is far from perfect. It meets most guidelines and does need some more reputable sources to back it up. Some of the websites mentioned are reliable. It is matter of proving them to be so. It is hard to prove some sites because of the secretive nature of the owners of the sites. They have been sued for a lot of money and it has cost them big money to set up and keep said websites. Some of the other websites mentioned are very legitimate sites, the people go into great details about their bad Lasik outcomes but they are very forthcoming about it. http://www.mikeslasikhell.com is his own independent site. http://www.helpstoplasik.com/ is Morris Waxlers own website. While that does not actually make any website more credible that you have listed, there has been a huge lawsuit that has gone back and forth between people who had horrible life changing outcomes and a representative of Refractive Surgeons. The Refractive Surgeons have a multi million dollar war chest to quash these sites and have done so. The people who had legitimate sites were forced to take them down in the latest legal battle. That legal battle still ensues. Why is this relevant? I feel it is relevant because Kantis would have more reliable sources but when a federal judge tells you to shut down your website, you do it. This happened within the last 6 months and is still an ongoing case. He would have many more websites as credible references had this article been written a year ago. Basically that leaves us with one thing. Is he notable for more then one event? Yes with some more proof IMO yes. Sure he is an anti-Lasik person but he has a little more then what is a story of his anti-Lasik life. His article is very badly written and I still feel that if someone took the time to go over it he would be noteworthy , hence worthy of an article on his life. It does need a lot work though so I can see your point. This article should have written properly in the first place and the it would just need some clarifications. I point out that the subject did not write it and seems a little confused as to how to improve it. You Tube is not going to be a reliable source and in his reply to this there were a bunch of You Tube links.

While I personally cannot stand "celebrity doctors" there are many who have their own Wikipedia pages. A lot of self serving pages: I know this falls under WP:OSE but I will show an example however irrelevant it might be. Dan Reinstein: He is known for one thing; he was slightly involved in the development of the now obsolete Artemis scanner. The rest of his article is basically fluff and is mostly a covert ad for The London Vision Clinic which he owns. His involvement with Carl Zeiss Meditec is overstated but verifiable. He may have 97 Peer related publications but they are mostly from other people with his comments added on. This is verifiable hence proper but not necessary fully truthful. Laser blended vision is another name for mono vision and his jazz performances consist of a talented jazz band playing, him playing sax, getting out of breath and then leaning on things as other musicians play. I have seen this first hand. That does not meet the burden of proof for AfD but I cannot site YouTube as a reference. To me it seems that verifiability is much more important then the truth as I read it. Does he plays saxophone? Is laser blended vision the same as mono vision? Yes and it is verifiable. Does he play well IMO or for a whole piece? No, also verifiable but left out of his article. While this falls under a totally different category I am basically stating the complete opposite side of this discussion but one that has been brought up before. Celebrity doctors. This is not so much a comment as to why one article is better then another. It goes to whether an article is Noteworthy yet in the previous article nobody calls for AfD. It just that it appears that Reinsteins article is professionally written but is the same thing just opposite sides. If you pick through it, the references should be thoroughly checked and so should most of what is stated in the article. Is it most of it verifiable? Questionable. Is it truthful? No because of the old lying through omission thing but all it has to meet is verifiability and worthiness. Is this a legitimate point under Wikipedia rules? Perhaps. Why? because one article was written with half truths professionally by someone who knows Wikipedia guidelines and the one that is up for AfD was not. References to papers that are published and then someone throws their name on them IMO are not credible sources but are verifiable. Very much like the Dr. Oz point brought up. He did not do any the research for his TV show on Lasik. He did present it. Because of his celebrity status does that make him an expert on Lasik or was it self serving? If you look at his page it might also be considered for AfD. Regarding of whether an apple can kill you or whether homosexuals can be "cured", I am disturbed as to the truthfulness of these things and while one can be verified and the other is utter nonsense IMO can that statement be verified or is it just junk science?

  • So basically my summary is to have the article in this discussion for AfD rewritten to the standards of Wikipedia. It is worthy but not well written and no insult to the author is implied. If I wrote it , it would be worse. That is my new opinion after studying Wikipedia guidelines. On the other hand quite a few articles should be edited. I am too new to this to do this and biased to a point. If I knew what I was doing I would edit some articles I have read. In time I will but not yet, I need to learn a bit more. I'm trying. Gibco65 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe Gibco has improperly summarized the gist of this discussion. If the article were salvageable, then it would be salvaged. I believe the problem is that there are not sufficient independent unbiased sources on which to build the article in the first place. Mr Kantis is simply not a notable person according to the standards of Wikipedia, and does not merit an article, no matter how well or poorly written. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison with other articles, whether Dan Reinstein or any other page, is not relevant to this discussion. Each article needs to stand on its own merits when determining if it is notable. There are many problems with many other wikipedia pages, this is no reason to abandon the standards. Agree in Wikipedialand, verifiability is everything, but truthfulness is another matter. Wikipedia is based on sources, whilst "The Truth"TM is subjective. Lesion (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: All right one last one. I was not just making a statement based on comparison, I am trying to figure out what is suitability for notability and clarification. It was an example and was brought up earlier in the discussion, Dr. Oz. I'm am just making a comment here that is really just a question. Dr Oz. He claims that homosexuality is a disease based on pseudoscience on Wikipedia, even though this has been pointed out as a Controversy. What proof or truth is there to that? That goes toward verification. Controversy if pointed out constitutes verification even though it's not a truthful statement? His FDA claim about apple juice is another. Because the FDA says that the level of arsenic were above the amount allowed in water but not juice make his claim unverifiable. So what the FDA and consumer reports says is verifiable how? That is my question. The whole verifiability thing confuses me and really is my question. My question is what passes the "smell test" for verification. I know that truth is out but doesn't verification have to be based on truthfulness? It is a question and not a statement. The comparison was to see what passed the "smell" test and what didn't. I'm trying to learn. My comparison was based on two factors, one that Reinstein claims to be a leading authority on the correction of complications of laser eye surgery and has an article on Wikipedia so it is on the complete opposite end of the this discussion. Who made that statement? Many refractive surgeons would strongly disagree, I know a few. Now just because I said that does that meet verification or would I have to have said doctors publish their disagreement and then reference it? I would say he is very pro Lasik yet his article has some pretty sketchy verifications as per what I just wrote but yet passes the "smell" test hence is OK for Wikipedia. Dr. Oz who has been mentioned in this AfD. Same thing, some wild things said but no real evidence to back it up. What passes the "smell test"? You cannot have complete verification without truthfulness. That is my question as it pertains to this. Comparison to other articles was to constitute verification. I really don't know how you can have verification without truth. I ask you Lesion to help me with this being that you are much more familiar with this and especially on medical issues. While this really has nothing to do with this discussion please help me understand my dilemma. In medicine others cannot verify your results if you are not truthful or in any science for that matter. I need to know how something can be verified with a lie if you will. Truthfulness has to be considered in verification or the article in is invalid.

  • WikiDan61 I respect your opinion as you are entitled to it. I think it needs to be rewritten properly and you feel that he is not notable. Both sides have been heard. Gibco65 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibco, I've posted a reply to your Q on your talk page since I felt my reply was not directly relevant to this AfD. Lesion (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cicada 3301[edit]

Cicada 3301 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable, fails WP:ORG. Eighteither (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote! is by a SPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that? Angelsmashed (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What "print newspapers"? I'm having a hard time finding more than two reliable sources: Andes Online and mental_floss. Further, we have no idea what this is, 4chan users are known for elaborate trolling (to play devils advocate). Interesting topic, but uncertain it's reached the point of Wikipedia notability. If it had more mainstream coverage would be more inclined. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Elaborate trolling from 4chan users? That is a huge jump. For generic 4chan users to get together and create extremely complex puzzles which require vast knowledge on cryptography, arts and humanities, security and networking, etc. is some big step. Seriously, that is some big leap of judgement to make on your part. This think tank/secret society has entered internet pop culture. There is no reason this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farquezy (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the combination of a large scale, in-depth piece that's entirely focused on the group (the mental_floss article) combined with news coverage (Andes Online) not sufficient? It seems to satisfy the depth of coverage requirement; the independent/reliable requirement; and the overall notability requirement. Angelsmashed (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage per WP:GNG, one source in mental_floss and one source in Latin America is insufficient to show that this is notable. We can't even say what it is, other than a puzzle that appeared anon on the Internet. The claim that it has "entered internet pop culture" is not verifiable in reliable sources. Further the SPA's in this AfD are talking-up Cicada 3301 too much for comfort, such as claiming there are "print newspaper" sources but not providing those sources, getting overly defensive when I played devil's advocate that it might be a 4chan troll. At best the whole thing would have to be re-written as being a "series of clues posted to the internet by an anonymous entity (person or persons)" (not an organization, since there is no evidence for it). And it would be mostly based on just one source. Wait for more sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry I misspoke about the "print newspaper." I was referring to the Andes Online article. Wasn't trying to overstate it. As for "Farquezy" getting defensive, not sure how that relates here -- it's obviously unprofessional, but should not shape the outcome of the discussion at hand (not sure if it's an SPA, but it is in no way related to me...). As for WP:GNG, I disagree that it fails to meet the requirements, given that the requirements consist of:
    • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - covered by mental_floss article.
    • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. - covered by mental_floss and Andes Online.
    • "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. - Given the high level of depth and quality in the mental_floss article, that would seem to cover it. Andes Online is, admittedly, of lower quality, but still meets all of the requirements above: depth of coverage, quality of sources, and multiple sources.
    • "Independent of the subject" - Covered by both mental_floss and Andes Online.
    • I'm open to whatever outcome is fair. I didn't write the article, and I have no real interest in keeping it up, other than the fact that I found the subject matter fascinating when I found my way here from the front page of reddit the other day. But I'm just not seeing where it doesn't meet these standards. I agree that a rewrite would be good, but that doesn't mean we should delete. Angelsmashed (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Green Cardamom. I see one source that's up to GNG standards, but that's not enough. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Eternity sign[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Armenian Eternity sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, There is no any reliable information in this article, no facts which would be verified by RS​​, sheer falsification and original researches of the writers of this article. Almost all of the facts in this article absurd results of original research. But there are no reliable sources nor in the Armenian, nor in English about that "symbol". --Δαβίδ (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AFD is now properly templated --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture with that I don't argue, but the fact that it is a "symbol" and had the value of simbol for the Armenians is not proven by RS an that is original researches. A particular ornament of old pagan architecture is not a theme for separate article.
Besides that, there is texts in article that are not directly related to it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - obviously there is a language barrier here which makes things more difficult but that part of your argument that I do understand seems contrary to WP guidelines and policies. You say that, "Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture". If that is the case, wouldn't WP:NOTTEMP come into play? The article gives examples of the symbol's use in art, architecture, modern corporate logos and relatively modern Government-minted coins. Are you suggesting that combining those examples in this article is some form of synthesis? I will say that the sourcing looks pretty weak, with a stack of dead links and some general comments that clearly aren't sources, but searching for "Armenian Eternity symbol" in Google brings up many, many results including many image results that all correspond with what is in the article. Stalwart111 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stalwart, I thing the language barrier has no any connection to this, because there are no RS in Armenian language as well. This is not encyclopedicly written article, it's only fabricated. There only added facts which are not connected to the issue (about swastikas, buddism and so on), falsificated and non encyclopedic statements (as national identity simbol and so on) and no sources (user used his own opinion as a sourse for his another research) not in Armenian, nor in English. And in this case, non of statement in this article, even the fact that this is symbol, was not proven. Google searchings does not bring the facts that this is symbol. "Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture" yes of coruse as well as many other ornaments such as grapes, granates, octagonal stars and many other ornaments which are used in armenian, georgian and other architectural ornaments too, but that doesnt mean that we can represent that ornament as symbol as it done in article. That is only original researches. --Δαβίδ (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I've moved your comment up here as a response to mine). By "language barrier", I meant between participants here in this conversation, not in the article. Language issues in the article are a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Again, the issue I have here is that the symbol in question seems to be a widely recognised and well known symbol, both in the ancient world and more recently. I'm currently working on the article Occult symbols, so I do have some understanding of the issues in play here. While I understand that some of the claims in the article might constitute original research, that's just a matter of editing those claims out. I just don't think this is non-notable and I don't think it should be deleted. It's regular use in ancient architecture and modern business would almost qualify as "significant coverage" in my view. Cut it back, sure, but the title should be kept and moved to Armenian eternity symbol. Stalwart111 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart, original researches are only one of problems in this article, there are also misrepresentaion of facts too. You bring me collage of pics in this article as a proof, but most of that pics are not connected with the issue as most of text too. For example simbol on this picture. That is classic swastika on newspaper, so how it connected with this so called "simbol", or pictures from ancient petroglyphs or on the carpests and so on.
Another example of falsifing of facts is usage of some terms here. For example "Kerkhach" with the source. Kerkhach is only armenian synonym for nazi swastika, how it reletas to this article? So, if we remove that facts from this article, it will look like in previos version: only one sentence without RS.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a few concerns about the swastika cross-references and couldn't find a source equating the two. It seems the only way you could equate the two is to compare the eternity symbol's meaning to Buddhist and Hindu eternity symbols in terms of meaning and then draw a loose comparison between symbol shapes to suggest they are one in the same. Again, I have no problem with the article being cut back to a stub as you suggest above, but deletion doesn't seem to be the right answer. I think we should have coverage here of the symbol itself but I don't disagree that much of the content of the current article should probably be deleted. WP:TNT might be relevant. Stalwart111 22:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, I will cut off most of that text, but previous stub version has also been nominated for deletion.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really, it was tagged for speedy deletion which was declined. That's not the same thing as having previously been nominated at AFD. Anyway, I think where you have the article now is a good start, except for perhaps one or two of the {{cn}} templates. It's a bit silly to ask for a citation for the first line which suggests it was an ancient Armenian symbol next to a large image of the symbol on an ancient Armenian structure. I don't think it takes a great deal of original research to interpret a giant block of stone. Stalwart111 09:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart this article has been nominated in AfD previosly and the result was no consensus. I have already said that i think were is some difference between such terms as "ornament" and "symbol". As an ornament it has been used in ancient archtecture, but does it have a value of symbol? we dont have any RS that will prove that fact, thats why I put that template there.--Δαβίδ (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! I had missed that one. I've added the proper div box above for the AFD of the article with a previous title. I'm not sure that use of the word "ornament" is quite right - an ornament is usually something small and physical like a little statue or an ornamental plant. It's not quite the right word for a symbol, although I suppose the symbol could be used on an ornament or in an ornamental way. It's probably a bit awkward. Are you talking about the distinction between a symbol and symbolic or symbolism? Stalwart111 02:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Δαβίδ, 46.241.233.91, 46.241.248.200 - IP vandal and no reson given. You can see this look at the history page of the files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history

and my talk page

commons:User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP_vandalism

He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Commons:Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal. No have matter for discussion.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This person from Armenian Wikipedia - David1992. Thanks for Stalwart. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vahram Mekhitaryan, nominating the articles or the files for deletion in wiki projects is not vandalism, please read the deletion policy and stop blaming me in vandalism if there is no.--Δαβίδ (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Borjgali and retitle. There has been quite a bit of edit warring over this sign but if you look at [11], [12], [13] it seems obvious that this symbol has been used in the area of Georgia and Armenia for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, most of that has been uploaded to Wiki Commons under that title by user who edited this article, but most of that symbols has no any conection with the topic of article. That user was alse draw new symbols or symbol mixes like this one.--Δαβίδ (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed a huge gallery - far too large and made a mess of the page, but I notice a lot of the images were of swastikas, which if it means anything means that the symbol is a variant of the swastika, so perhaps it should be merged with Swastika instead. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now not convinced it's a swastika variant, but I am convinced it isn't unique to Armenia and if the article is kept that needs to be made clear. I still think that this symbol must have discussion somewhere not related specifically to Armenia and that it is related to the similar symbol found in adjoining regions. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the gallery again and explained to the editor why it shouldn't be there. I also discovered that the editor in question had added a lot of copyvio material, some a few clearly unreliable sources he's used. I note that one of those, and a whole paragraph, was about swastikas - that and the gallery were clearly trying to make some sort of link. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your'e right, I can't say surely anything about this "symbol", becase we don't have any RS, even in Armenian.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart, there is no topic for a separate article. Even on the nazi swastika, which was used at the state level and at almost all symbols of the countre, there is no separate article neither here nor in the German wiki, only a sub-section in the article about swastika.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty significant section from the section-redirect Nazi swastika and then we have Nazi symbolism too. I wouldn't disagree strongly with this being merged/retitled as Doug has suggested. But we do have plenty of short stub articles on particular symbols. Stalwart111 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seeing is believing, with all the photo evidence this is proven to be a common symbol in Armenia and arguing that it's not beggars intelligence. There's no sensible reason not to present what available information there is on it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There has been a long discussion on russian wiki with talk, which I don't want to repeat, since most of it makes no sense. The article stayed there. There are number of academical sources in Armenian (modern and Soviet times), as well as official decisions of the Republic of Armenia (related to lots of medals and coat of arms), who call the symbol "eternity sign". Eternity sign is the standard name to refer to the symbol in Armenia (both official and academical circles). It has nothing to do with Borjgali. The Bolnisi_cross, Canterbury cross, Cross pattée, Maltese cross and Languedoc look geometrically almost the same, but they are not the same symbol. Borjgali and Armenian Eternity sign have different local names, different meanings (Sun vs eternity), different shapes (number of wings is seven for Borjgali, whereas it has to be even for Armenian Eternity sign). The symbol is used in Armenia so often (you can see from the galleries, currently deleted from article), that it is absolutely necessary to have an article in Wiki. Хаченци (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone suggests to merge with Borjgali or Swastika, how then he can explain the existence of dozens of variations of crosses in the article Christian cross. In that case we should merge all of them into one. Хаченци (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough sources for writing an article for this symbol. I will do it in few days. Хаченци (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just reverted what I consider to be a disruptive blanking by Δαβίδ. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be merged with Swastika because there's no sources except UNICODE table that calls it "Armenian Eternity sign". That symbol is common in many cultures, and while it is occasionally used in Armenian State symbolics it was not given a special name and it has no special meaning in that symbolics. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, and you know it. There are some foreign sources, shown in Russian wiki, which call it "Armenian eternity sign", and dozens of Armenian sources, which call it "eternity sign" (without mentioning the word Armenian of course). You know all this, so why are you writing that?Хаченци (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep and do not merge - The idea of merging it with a Swastika makes no sense at all; Swastikas have four arms only and are very well defined elsewhere. The Armenian character may have a variable number of arms and would certainly not be recognized by for example Hindus as a variant of their symbol. Evidence for the existence of this symbol was given in Proposal to encode two symbols for Armenian in the UCS in 2010; these were accepted for encoding. As characters they are facts and Unicode characters are often the subject of articles in the Wikipedia. The character does occur in Armenian standards; in documents I have seen it has a postscript name "armeternity". Its name is ARMENIAN ETERNITY SIGN in the UCS, and even if it did have other names in Armenian, that is the name of the character in Unicode. I see no reason to go crazy over this. If there are issues about the name, a paragraph can be introduced into the article about that. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no reason to delete this article. of course it's not in a good shape, but that can be changed. As you can see from the gallery section, it is indeed widely used in architecture and arts even today. --Երևանցի talk 22:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI see the article now says this emerged from the Indian swastika, so I'm still not convinced it shouldn't be a subsection of Swastika if that is correct. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article Christian cross, and few dozens of articles about several different Christian crosses. Merging makes no sense at all. It originates as Swastika, but soon after christianization of Armenia it gets a christian meaning, making it popular in Armenian Christian culture. Swastika has almost nothing to do with the sign, the only connection is that prototype of the symbol has been a sort of swastika. Хаченци (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the text to be deleted.
Name and synonyms: Full misinformation. "Kerhach" is a sinonym of swastika, has nothing to do here. The same about other name, at least there is no RS.
Non related content and original researches. Subpage about origin is not directly related to the topic, it can be placed in article about swastica, but not here. Statment that this is "national identity symbol" should be deleted without any discussion, because there can not be enciclopedic RS in which it can be "proven". "in a very unexpected places can meets this signs" or "traditionally made cradles" and such a other facts too.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Хаченци, you say without mentioning the word Armenian of course? So what we are discussing?--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should an Armenian source mention the word 'Armenian', when speaking about Armenian symbol? I can imagine a foregin source writing 'the Jewish star of David' but it's hard to imagine a Jewish source writing 'the Jewish star of David'. Currently the article os OR, but you know there is a russian WP version with dozens of sources. If the article about the sign is so important to you (and I guess it is, since all your contribution to WP is restricted to this article and related topics), why don't you simply translate them? I don't have enough time to do it. Is your goal to delete the article by any means or to improve it? Хаченци (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russian wiki version also not confirmed. Because the user consistently adding here OR text. Thats why it seems this article cannot be written without OR.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Russian WP there are about 30 sources mentioning the symbol.

Because the user consistently adding here OR text

Maybe you should try to give time to that user, and not delete everything he adds? Have you ever tried to use TalkPage of the article? Хаченци (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not going to leave that noncense here, because I know what that user is tring to prove here--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about what you know or what you want. It's about what you're allowed to do and what you aren't. You should assume that other users do not have bad goals while editing WP, unless otherwise proven. What you're doing is provocating an EW and then complaining to admins. You never even tried to use the Talk Page, before starting an edit war. That's something you should have done. If you beleive that something is nonsense, it does not mean that it really is.

The same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.

There is completely different discussion on Russian WP. And the Russian WP article is clearly something which one should bring as an example, since there are 30 sources there and almost every claim is supported by several sources. Хаченци (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? I've written him many times on his talkpage. And how many times he answered me? He only blaming me in vandalism and offended.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you have questions conecrning to the content of an article, you state them on the TalkPage of the article, so that other users also can read and comment. And not on the talk page of one single user. Хаченци (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statment about "identity symbol" must be removed. Only one source, report, is not enough for what.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're on the wrong page. Here it is discussed whather the article should be removed or not. Certain statements are discussed on the Talk page of the article. Хаченци (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the full article is consisted of such a statements, yes it must be deleted.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After extensively reviewing the article and doing my own research, I'm convinced that this is a significant and notable component in the symbolic identity of the Armenian people. I think this article could use a little bit of expansion with the help of foreign language sources, since I believe that most of the information pertaining to the Armenian eternity symbol is found within them. Above all, the symbol is definitely notable and highlights an important part of the Armenian identity through architecture, visual arts, and other stylized motifs. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources, to show how often it is used in Armenia, in culture and official symbolics. All given sources refer to the same symbol, under the same name 'sign of eternity' (or 'symbol of eternity').Хаченци (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Keep but add more references. Hablabar (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College of Engineering, Wayne State University[edit]

College of Engineering, Wayne State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Enormous puff piece. Individual colleges are rarely notable by our standards, and I don't see any reason (besides the unverified and inflated claims made in the article) to believe differently about this one. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nor does there seem to be anything worth merging here. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Melilla. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hidum[edit]

Hidum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

barely notable location Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this and several other similar one-phrasers into the parent article, Melilla. (doing it right now) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have reverted your disruption of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from your severe wording, I guess you never heard about WP:BOLD. <shrug> If you think there is something to discuss... At least thank you for not calling me vandal. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mecklenburg County Public Schools. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chase City Elementary school[edit]

Chase City Elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no independent sources, nothing but routine local coverage found via Google News. Was prodded, prod removed by The Whispering Wind with an edit summary of "no WP:BEFORE consideration of a merge or redirect". Well, absent third-party sources there's no content to merge, and we don't have an article on the school district, so there's nothing to redirect or merge to. The Chase City, Virginia article has no relevant content and would not be a helpful target for a redirect. Huon (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Early close, snow delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Crap Band (film)[edit]

The Holy Crap Band (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, unsourced and google searches produce no results ([14], [15]). AldezD (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V never mind WP:Notability (films). Searches yield no trace of this film, its filmmakers, or its production company outside the Wikipedia article. Films do not get articles without reliable source evidence that principal photography has begun. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably another "I made something up one day" article. Sadly, I don't think a hoax tag is appropriate as this isn't a thing anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX... and like you all, I looked for film, band, cast, and company. All fail WP:V. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French naked[edit]

French naked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable slang. This isn't urban dictionary. Googled the phrase and didn't find anything of substance. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From my earlier PROD nomination: "Even if this is real, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place for personal commentary by the author." —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Gobōnobō + c 07:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is notable. Google phrase and references as far back as 1930 can be found prolific use on social media in the twenty first century. Term is not always clearly understood and therefore clear description of background to phrase is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoobsw (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still just a definition with an etymology, typically what's found in dictionaries rather than encyclopedias. To be suitable for an encyclopedia, there ought to be literature discussing the expression. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because of WP:NOTDIC (since this article isn't a dicdef) but because not one of the sources given actually supports the claim that "French naked" means what this article claims it means. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be fantasy and original research. No sources to back up that this is a "common term". -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a hoax, pardon my French. None of the references given even use the phrase. Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siamorphe[edit]

Siamorphe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities. The topic is verifiable in authoritative sources and Siamorphe is a reasonable search term. --Mark viking (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as redirect/merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. This article was initially merged to the above target by the nominator in September 2009; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor just over a year later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject - although I will admit that this may be contentious, since there was a back-and-forth series of reverts over this in August 2012. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to some fansite that loves this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, this topic, as per usual with the D&D fictional cruft, fails WP:GNG with only primary, non-independent sources. Thus the options are merge, redirect or delete. The proposed merge target is currently also bloated with fancruft sourced only to primary non-independent sources and so a merge would merely be shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. As for redirect, as Vulcan39 points out, we have been down that path before (with editors other than IPs restoring the content that fails WP:GNG) and so if the decision is something other than delete, the result needs to be locked down. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Tat[edit]

Anthony Tat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NCYC; my Google search found nothing, granted it did ask me "did you mean ..." several variations of the name tat, but nevertheless proved nothing ... based on this article, he does not appear to have appeared in requisite events or have finished on the podium, and ergo, I fail to see his notability Go Phightins! 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Smells of a hoax to me. At the very least, it fails verifiability. I can find no rider by the name of Anthony Tat listed anywhere. A surprising result given that cycling produces a lot of sports coverage. The sole reference is a link to a web site which appears to recreate a BBC sports page announcing the results from the "Tour of Shanghai" race. Yeat I can find no coverage of such a cycling race anywhere let alone on the BBC site. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Caitlin Galway[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cardiology Trials[edit]

List of Cardiology Trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not well-defined scope (who says what is "important", or why "cardiology trials" is a unified encyclopediac topic). No evidence that these trials are actually high quality (many refs look like primary research, not WP:MEDRS). Inbound links make it look like a dumping ground for refs from other articles and/or implication that the number of refs itself on some topic might be significant (but again the list is cherry-picked with no defined inclusion criteria or scope). Tagged for these concerns for 9 months, nobody seems to care except to remove the tags and to pile in more refs. DMacks (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a clinical trials registry, and this sort of cherry-picked selection of random trials is an undue weight nightmare without any real justification as to its notability. The net result is confusing and misleading at best, and subtle advertising at worst. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a notable topic and this article ought to exist but this content needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia standards. I want more clinical trial articles on Wikipedia and I think that they should look like this - PARAMOUNT trial. There is precedent in other articles that in some potentially very long lists like this one, the lists are cut back to items which meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If someone made individual articles for individual clinical trials then put them all in a list like this with a link to the Wikipedia article for each one, then definitely I would support this existing. Right now the information in this article is not useful by Wikipedia standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully support a "List of clinical trials in cardiology" as an annotated list of other wikipedia articles about notable trials (and I also support having articles about those). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists is the guideline. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Burbacher[edit]

Thomas Burbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is quite short and I added most of the sources myself. In addition, most of the impact Burbacher's research has had has been through a single study (the EHP study). In my view, Burbacher does not meet WP:PROF. Jinkinson (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, the problem this article has is that it was started as a WP:COATRACK by an anti-vaccination activist/editor back in 2005, then it got ignored for several years until being stubbed down in 2011. (More than half the article was devoted to particular 2005 publication regarding potential neurological effects of organic mercury compounds in primates, and expressing cautious, moderated concern about the use of similar compounds in humans. The study was seized on – and its importance inflated – by anti-vaccinationists still reeling from Andrew Wakefield's 2004 de-pantsing, desperate for anything that could be interpreted as giving a fresh gloss of scientific credibility to their antics.) When the single-study coatrack bit was trimmed, it took more than half the Wikipedia article with it.
    While I see no indication that Burbacher is anything but a competent, dedicated, hardworking, and skilled researcher, I unfortunately also see no suggestion in the article that his work has risen in notability far enough above that of his colleagues to warrant (or properly support) a (well-sourced) Wikipedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree; not notable. LT90001 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy_Powers
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lovatts Media Group[edit]

Lovatts Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable organization. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:CORP. absolutely nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lovatt[edit]

Christine Lovatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not seeing any coverage in reliable third party sources that would indicate that this is a notable individual. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indepth significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAACP Dayton (OH) Branch[edit]

NAACP Dayton (OH) Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No attempt to create an article. Just a dump of various random info. Probably mostly copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BRANCH. Unless someone can show why this particular branch passes WP:GNG on subjects that extend beyond the region of the branch. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leira (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Leira (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. as far as Wikipedia goes, the subject fails WP:GNG as there is no independent coverage of the subject - all the materials are published by the creator or by companies officially licensed by the creator - and so the article should be deleted or merged if there is appropriate content that is appropriately sourced to add to an appropriate target article. Since there are only primary sources, it seems unlikely that merging would do much more than move issues from this page to another where they will need to be dealt with later. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fact is, the bar is being set no higher than any other project- WP:POKEMON - all articles are expected to have independent reliable sources take note of them in a significant manner. There is no exception for D&D products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as redirect/merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged to the above target by User:Neelix subsequent to discussion in October 2010; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor just over a year later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (after trimming) into List of Forgotten Realms deities or Delete, per TRPoD, NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge. Only primary sources, fails WP:GNG (which is not negotiable).Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pooch! Booking & Touring[edit]

Pooch! Booking & Touring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note the multitude of tags: no sources verify that this outfit is notable by our standards (GNG or CORP). Even if all the claims in the article are true, booking concerts for a few notable bands does not make for notability. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim made that would reasonably constitute notability, and a brief Internet check didn't look promising.--Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I should note that the website's "about" page copies word for word from the Wikipedia article so it makes me suspect whether it's a copy violation. The website is tagged copyright 2013 and this article was this March so I don't know which came first (first red flag). As for Google News, I found absolutely nothing despite using the sole name, "Randy Wolpin", "Roz Lynne" and "Florida company" (second red flag). The problem with talent agents are that they tend to stay in the shadows and don't always get much attention. It seems this may be the case. The Austin Chronicle article doesn't even mention this company. That's a long of clients so it would be a waste of time to search each one individually especially if there isn't even one mention on the company by itself. No prejudice towards a future article if the company becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to USC School of Cinematic Arts. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Animation and Digital Arts[edit]

Division of Animation and Digital Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much as I'd hate to get rid of this (as I'm technically a part of this program), I can't find evidence of notability for it. All sources in the article are primary, a basic Google search comes up with nothing outside of USC material, and a GNews search comes up with only passing mentions (e.g. "Kathy Smith, the head of the John C. Hench Division of Animation and Digital Arts" type mentions). Redirect to the broader USC School of Cinematic Arts is possible, but the current title isn't IMO specific enough to point directly to USC, so that should really only be done if a merge is decided on. Ansh666 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, since it's a named division and someone might look for the phrase. Certainly not justified as a separate article by our usual standards for academic institutions. Some day, if the Division itself wins an award, rather than individuals associated with it, there might possibly be a case. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: fixed the bolding, but you might want to try your signature again. Ansh666 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. AS it already has an entry at the target I have redirected; any further information may be merged across. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Humanity[edit]

Friends of Humanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, no significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No deletion rationale has been provided by nominator or anyone since. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CubeSmart[edit]

CubeSmart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basket Feudalist 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Publicly traded company is notable, only problem is lack of reliable sources. Fitnr (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hey Basket, can you please complete the AFD process and provide your reason or rationale for the nomination? Not sure how we can address your concerns if they haven't actually been presented. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because it's a publicly traded company, but because it's a NYSE listed publicly traded company. We've essentially always kept such articles, except when they;re hopelessly promotional--and this one is neutral & factual. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllida Beck[edit]

Phyllida Beck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY is an issue here. Basket Feudalist 12:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coming third in the national championships in 1976 does not match up to the claim that she 'received the highest accolade in British figure skating' and I can find no other evidence that even approaches WP's notability requirements. PS - my wife's great aunt claimed to have taught Agatha Christie to dance; notability is not inherited. --AJHingston (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No dates; no categories. Even being UK champion in a minor sport should not confer notability. She then (apparently) retired from competition to teach. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed, wrong forum. Any requests to delete just the talk page of an article, without requesting the deletion of the article itself, should be directed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gregory Retallack[edit]

Talk:Gregory Retallack (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Gregory Retallack|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP Basket Feudalist 11:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep talk page. Revision of the article per outcome of AfD is still under discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NME covers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of NME covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of the NME cover, with context, might be notable. A chronological list of whoever happened to appear on the cover each week is indiscriminate and is not notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not indiscriminate in a general sense because the format and content is quite tightly scoped. The list is long but I don't consider it sprawling because the chronological sequence makes it easy to locate periods of interest and the blue links to the artists are easy to browse and skim. The sources above indicate that this material is of interest to music journalists. For their field of popular music, this seems to be a significant marker of status and trends, and so is comparable with other pages such as List of covers of Time magazine. Warden (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your arguments seem to be along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL. If it was a discussion about trends, and why certain artists appear more than others, and appearances at peaks of their popularity, based on secondary coverage in reliable sources, then there is some encyclopedic value. As a chronological list it does not do this, and thus is not encyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL doesn't apply because Warden explains why it's useful: "Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless". Warden does that. Just throwing around policy names without explaining or understanding them isn't helpful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Moreover, WP:USEFUL isn't a policy; it's just an essay. If you want a relevant policy, that would be WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't show how this list meets notability guidelines, and how it isn't just an indiscriminate list of everyone who has ever appeared on the cover of the NME. Where's the context? How is this list "a significant marker of status and trends"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already produced adequate evidence. You're the nominator trying to make a case here and I am currently not persuaded. Firing off a lot of questions isn't helping as we shall not be bringing you another shrubbery. Warden (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD. This is not indiscriminate information, and it is a notable topic. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion discussion was not a "keep", but a "no consensus". You need to demonstrate how it is notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing shows this is a topic that is discussed in reliable third party sources. I understand the noms position and there are arguments either way but I think it does more harm than good to delete. Magazine covers can "define their era" as the Guardian says of some of these, covers show cultural trend, as some of the sources discuss, it makes perfect sense to give a complete chronological list. I think the list could be in 3 or 4 columns to make it more compact, but it's not excessive in length. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Raid (band)[edit]

Tokyo Raid (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google search has no hits for RSes partially because the term has another meaning. Nothing at AllMusic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Current sources are mostly unreliable blogs. Nothing found on Google News when searching "Tokyo Raid" + various keywords. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TPH --Glaisher [talk] 09:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fenton, Michigan delete and salt. Consensus is that this should not be an individual article (through deletion, merging or redirecting); the chosen result is to Redirect to Fenton, Michigan and let editors merge out any relevant content from this title's history; it will also be salted for a year per request to avoid repeated recreation. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further discussion on my talk page convinced my to enforce the deletion consensus conventionally in order to avoid DRV; if anyone still feels there is deleted content that should be merged, let me know and I'll provide a copy of the deleted article for you to do as you see fit. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Lake Village (Michigan)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G4 declined for no reason. Blatant advertising for a non-notable strip mall. The only sources are the individual websites of the companies in it, a couple real estate listings on Loopnet, and a fansite about drive-in theaters. No secondary sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A reason was given for declining the WP:CSD#G4 which was "Completely different article". Because I cannot see the previous article I cannot tell which was appropriate—the speedy deletion request or its rejection. Could the nominator see the previous article? Thincat (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but I do remember the previous version having virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing, so I felt that it met "substantially similar". If an admin could corroborate, please do so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. G4 does not apply if the two versions are "not substantially identical". I have no idea whether the topic is notable (but it is certainly of no interest to me). Thincat (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contrary to the nominator's WP:NPA-violating statement, the G4 tag was declined because it did not apply. Tagging articles for G4 just because they have "virtually the same sources and some similar phrasing" is an abuse of the process, since far more than "some similar phrasing" is required for G4. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the hell is "declined for no reason" an attack? Please don't be so oversensitive. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're accusing me of declining things willy-nilly, and your WP:AN thread shows that this is something you wanted admin intervention on. Read WP:WIAPA #5 and start heeding it, and be aware that continued abuse of G4 will lead to a block as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we could drop the threats and discuss the merits of keeping or deleting the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to say that while this may have been a very minor NPA issue, it was most certainly not an abuse of G4 in any way, Nyttend. Tagging editors do not have access to the deleted version of the page, so parsing the differences between them is impossible. This was a reasonable and good-faith, though ultimately incorrect, G4 tag. Holding that absurd standard would reserve G4 tagging only to admins, since they are the only ones who can investigate thoroughly enough to determine whether the article is truly identical. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Having looked at the deleted version of the article, I'd say this is pretty damn close to the same article, perhaps even substantially identical, although admittedly not identical identical. Created by the same editor 3 months after the previous AFD ended, with the same basic scope, the same article organization, worse references, and no indication of notability - the reason for the previous deletion has not been addressed in any way. Not sure what the point of G4 is, if this doesn't qualify. All you have to do is re-word a few things and remove a few references and you get a new bite at the apple? BTW, I'm going to restore the article history while this AFD is going on, so non-admins can see it for themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: deleted history restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and yes, G4 does apply. Created by the same person about the same thing with none of the original defects corrected. Are we arguing that articles recreated by people with bad memories aren't eligible for G4?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the key bits to the Fenton, Michigan article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that the history is visible it seems a stretch to me to say that this is not substantially identical in the spirit surely intended by G4. It certainly doesn't seem to address any of the previous deletion reasons, and the structure, style, content are peas in a pod. As mentioned above, if this isn't G4 worthy then what is the point to G4? May as well just give everyone a new AFD every time they want to recreate anything, so long as they make a few copyedits. Begoon talk 02:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete' as obvious CSD:G4 Technical 13 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am utterly bemused by this. The previously deleted version[16] has 501 words "readable prose text" and four references. The version recently brought to AfD[17] has 694 words and seventeen references. Here is the diff. So far as I can see two references are common to both versions. Are some people here believing these are "substantially identical? Am I looking at the wrong versions for comparison? Of course, there are similarities between the versions and the same editor created both. Note: there is a parallel discussion at WP:AN#G4. Thincat (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (WP:SMERGE, really) with Fenton, Michigan as Candleabracadabra suggests. Although notability does not seem to be established and much of the material is promotional, some encyclopedic material relevant to Fenton is worth salvaging (WP:PRESERVE). Thincat (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...truly... we are indeed a cosmopolitan and broad encyclopedia... "the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions"... I stand in awe of our awesomeness... Begoon talk 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are new here! The glory days of shopping mall deletion discussions are long since over. Look at one of the DRVs of MacDade Mall here. And, for sheer quaintness, the closer's rejection of one of its AFD nominations here. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much... Not so much new, but young in this area of specialisation. Educated now though, through your grace, and suitably amused with your informative links. Did I thank you? Have another one anyway - thanks... Begoon talk 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent yet another recreation and unnecessary AfD. According to WP:Places of local interest (essay), the relevant guideline is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The sourcing is completely insufficient to support this article. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, the sourcing, though more thorough, is still incredibly suspect, being composed of promotional rather than informational sources. Suggest simply leaving a warning on the creating editor's user page that without solid sourcing for WP:Notability, this article should not be recreated, but SALTing seems like a step too far: this place could be leading an economic renaissance in Fenton, and it is entirely possible that independent media could cover it in that context. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Fenton, Michigan, and salt the redirect (i.e., protect it so the article can't be recreated). This looks like a non-notable run-of-the-mill local shopping center that someone has documented unusually well. Some of the information is relevant in the context of Fenton, but the topic isn't worthy of a stand-alone article. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have merged what I thought was worth including at Fenton, Michigan. I think leaving a redirect would be helpful and have no objetion to protecting it if recreation is a concern. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted Candleabracadabra and revision deleted. Please don't do that until the AFD is closed. Merging that way forces a keep of the parent article due to licensing rules. An editor wound up banned for doing that over objections. If the AFD completes as "merge" or "redirect", then I can unhide your changes.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion does not prevent good faith edits from going forward. I included some material from this article in another article. It was not some spurrious attempt to preserve this article. You also oversighted edits that had nothing to do with this subject (about downtown redevelopment in Fenton, Michigan and the Old Firehouse) and those need to be restored.
An editor above asked what I would include from this article so I went ahead and did the additions I deemed warranted. There is nothing untoward about my actions and nothing that should have been oversighted. In fact I support the deletion of this article in favor of simply leaving a protected redirect (since there is a history of recreation against consensus).
Whether the history needs to be preserved per policy is a separate issue, but I see no problem with doing that. If you have substantive arguments against noting this development area in the Fenton, Michigan article or arguments against redirecting this title to the parent subject you should present those. You have made it impossible for editors to judge whether the content edits I made were constructive and that is inappropriate. Please go back and undo your oversighting. You are disrupting the discussion and content improvements being attempted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Candleabracadabra, we understand that you didn't do anything to the content of this article. What you did was to use bits of it in another article, and that creates licensing problems if this article is deleted. Please do not merge material from articles at AFD until the AFD is closed. If we keep the history, that means that you have singlehandedly forced the article to be kept. That's unacceptable. Note the text in the Guide to deletion: "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes".—Kww(talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing an article being deleted with an article's history being preserved. Do you have any substantive arguments against any of the content additions I made to the Fenton, Michigan? Do you prefer a history merge or a protected redirect? Do you prefer another outcome? Let's stay focused on the disuccion and the best outcome. Also, you need to go back and restore the edits so they can be judged on their merits and because several of them had nothing to do with this article subject. It is not constructive to obstruct this discussion. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying focused on the discussion. I'm not confused. To delete an article means to remove its history. They are synonymous terms. I've told you not to do what you did. I left you a polite message about it. I pointed you at the guideline that explicitly tells you not to do it. I've undone it for you. I do not care whether you improved the article, I care only that if the edits you made were allowed to stand, they would have undermined this AFD. Do not merge material from articles at AFD again.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do anything to this article. I simply included some bits that seemed worth noting in the parent subject. There is no policy against that. If it makes it necessary to preserve the history that does not prevent the article content here from being deleted. As you noted, it doesn't even have to be kept as a redirect, it can simply be history merged. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked you what should be merged, I meant that I would like to see a description of the merger, sources in particular. Kww has explained the problem here and at your talk page. A history merge is not appropriate due to parallel versions. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology (USA band)[edit]

Mythology (USA band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not support notability. Searched and did not find any on first five Google pages. One problem is that there are two bands with this name and the 1960s band is notable. The other problem is that the term is general and I'm getting completely unrelated hits when searching for Mythology (band). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Searching "Mythology" + the band members' names revealed no reputable results. Only sources on the article are blogs and YouTube, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've nominated for speedy. Not a bad call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghent Theft Auto[edit]

Ghent Theft Auto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page seems to be promotion, possibly self-promotion (breaking WP:COI and WP:SPAM). The main editor to the page has only contributed to this article. It's a mod that is unreleased and currently unpopular. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's an unreleased, un-notable mod. When the time comes, (if it does), someone will write the article themselves and the topic will therefore become notable. Also voted delete per the nomination.MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find reliable sources covering the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. recreated content. Rschen7754 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (LadyDelay)[edit]

Adrian Visby (LadyDelay) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Adrian Visby, Adrian Visby (musician), Adrian.Visby, Adrian Visby (artist), Adrian Visby (activist), Adrian Visby (producer/musician/engineer), Adrian Visby (producer/musician), Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Boyd, Adrian Voyd, Cabalaza Music, Cabalaza Republic, The Fragile v4, Heavenade, Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby), LadyDelay, Civilexit? and more. Not notable. Delete, salt, scorch, ban. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edenism[edit]

Edenism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect this unreferenced in-universe article about a non-notable fictional element per Piotrus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. I could find no independent reliable sources for Edenism as it relates to the novels. Edenism gets a few hits in GScholar, but these are unrelated to the novels. --Mark viking (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adamism[edit]

Adamism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional concept seems to fail WP:N - no coverage in non-primary sources shown. This should be at best a redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Night's Dawn Trilogy. Good books, but I could find no independent sources discussing this fictional faction. I could see this as a search term, so a redirect seems reasonable. There is a concept of pre-adamism in Pre-Adamite, but I don't think the redirect will cause confusion. --Mark viking (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G12 as unambigous copyright infringement. --みんな空の下 (トーク) (non-admin closure) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

91.9 Fresh FM[edit]

91.9 Fresh FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable community radio station lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. reddogsix (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I (creator) have added references to information and coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Apologies for no references originally given. Subject is very well know though has had a name change. Simon McClintock (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Philosophy Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Natural Philosophy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous article on the subject was deleted and this one was recreated out-of-process. Seems to me to fail WP:CORP with apologies for the WP:FRINGE issues involved where WP:ONEEVENT coverage seems to have happened as a part of various "News of the Weird" segments. It is clear that this organization has not yet received the prominent notice necessary for it to be covered in Wikipedia. It's just a club for cranks and there are a few webpages and off-handed mentions of it in obscure outfits. jps (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is nothing but an alliance of deranged cranks, but it is a notable alliance of deranged cranks. The significant coverage by Wertheim, Farrell and Horgan in reliable sources demonstrates that this group is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article, even if most of its members are demented. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by fringe proponents like Wertheim does not contribute to notability, coverage "that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers" is required. Did you read what Farrell wrote? Because he does not mention the NPA. What coverage does Horgan give? He gives one paragraph [18] in a blog at SA where he gives only one paragraph; that is trivial coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim's coverage counts. She is an expert on outsider physics and has attended NPA events but she is not a supporter of the organisation's beliefs - she is a science writer who also writes widely on mainstream physics and applies a skeptical eye to both sides[19]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim is not a physicist. As such, there is no way she can be counted as an expert on physics, outsider or otherwise. The idea that she applies a skeptical eye to both "sides" is itself a rather precious position to take, as though there are two "sides" to the question of, for example, whether or not CERN will destroy the world. There is, after all, a 50% chance it will destroy the world, don't you know. jps (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim has a degree in physics. [20] LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Implying what? A great many people of all stripes are "listed members of the NPA." Just because someone is a "listed member" does not necessarily mean that they agree with anything that a given member or even the prevailing majority hold true. Perhaps the individual merely supports the notion of free and open dialogue on science, or merely "joined" as part of attending a conference with journalistic intent (honestly can't recall whether membership was required in order to attend; probably not, but can't recall). Others have noted the individual covers a wide variety of "alternative physics" topics (in a "blogger" or "citizen journalist" capacity). Anyway, speculation on motives or meaning of "membership" is merely that, "speculation." Mgmirkin (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read her article The edge of reason and judge for yourself. She is hardly a proponent (and this description of NPA was published in New Scientist, a mainstream publication).
  • I would say that she is a supporter of the NPA even though she doesn't agree with everything every other member advocates. 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This should not affect notability. Most supporters of free speech do not agree with everything that all others say.LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a member of NPA she is not a reliable source about the NPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not always the case, i.e. Snowden is a reliable source on NSA even though an employee. I think the correct statement is that "A supporter of X is not a reliable source about X". But you can be a member without being a supporter, as is Wertheim (and Snowden). Also each editor that chooses to review her work, and mentions NPA in the review, is a reliable source that the topic is notable, as the editor is choosing to make a public statement about the organization. Remember, we are discussing whether the organization is notable, not what people think about it. LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC), comment modified LouScheffer (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not what they are proposing is "true" is not relevant here. What is relevant is that they are a widely known clearing house for unorthodox theories. There are more than 300 references in 'books.google.com' and more than 250 in 'scholar.google.com'. In the academic world they serve a useful purpose - you are expected to provide a reference for each theory you mention, even if your next sentence is to dismiss it as wacky. NPA provides a source of such references, and is notable for this in the academic community. LouScheffer (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it is true that the truth-content of the NPA's presentations and members' positions are not relevant, what is relevant is the fact that they are a fringe organization that is set upon self-promotion. The NPA is a good source for people looking for really weird and out-there ideas, but we're talking about an article on the organization. For that, we need to establish that the association is notable independent of the promotions that are done by its members and comrades-in-arms. This is where we fall short on sources. It may be that this is an excellent resource for people who study pseudoscience, but it's not mentioned enough in the independent sources on the subject to be recognized as such. jps (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with Google searches is that it does not show the significance of the coverage in those sources. For example, there are plenty of routine individual papers with over 500 citations, so claiming that this shows notability sets the criteria rather low (i.e pretty much every minor institute in the world). For example, here is a paper which seems to be about funny shaped sperm in fertilisation which has nearly 900 citations [22]. I doubt anyone will claim the individual article is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other independent/mainstream references to the NPA, with neutral or derogatory descriptions of what it is and what it does. Many of these references are short, so the question becomes if they are enough to cause someone to turn to Wikipedia to find out about the organization.

  • Here is description and discussion about NPA in "Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia", edited by Sal P. Restivo, Oxford University Press, in the chapter on Grassroots Science.
    • This is clearly not enough to write a single sentence about the group. It is not anything more than a passing mention. jps (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Challenging dominant physics paradigms, a "conventional science" article by by Campanario and Martin that describes how scientists attempt to go against conventional wisdom.
    • The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a fringe journal. The two authors are members of the NPA: [23], [24]
      • Sure, but did you 'read' the article? It seems about as neutral and well-referenced as you could expect, given that any article on opposing the status quo will likely be written from that perspective.
  • In The Big Bang - A Hot Issue in Science Communication, by Griffiths and Oliveira, refers to NPA as an organization started by Van Flandern "to propound his unscientific viewpoints". Definitely not a supporter or proponent.
  • This is clearly only passing mention. You quote the entirety of what the article says on the subject.
  • This passage is quoted in the book "Cambridge Academic English: An Integrated Skills Course for EAP", by Martin Hewings, Craig Thaine. This might well be the most "mainstream" of mentions, in the sense that it could be run across by someone who has no idea what NPA is.
  • They are mentioned several times in Skeptical Inquirer, for example Volume 24, and as you might imagine in a not particularly favorable light.
    • Seems to be no more than a passing mention and doesn't allow for any article writing based on that source, I find.
    • From the snippets shown by google it seemed like a more serious discussion, but I do not have access to the full articles. If someone who does have access could quote the relevant passages, that would be great.
  • The article In Physics, Telling Cranks from Experts Ain't Easy by John Horgen of Scientific American talks about NPA.
  • Slate saw fit to reprint Wertheim's 'New Scientist' article as Other Theories of Physics, showing that they, at least, think the subject is of general interest.
  • Delete I've gone through every source in the article and those linked on this page. They either go back to Wertheim's piece, which is an unreliable source for determining independent notability, or are passing mentions that don't provide any knowledge to write an article, other than the organization's existence and purpose. I'd actually like to see an article on this topic, Wikipedia is the perfect forum to write about True Believers, but there doesn't seem to be sourcing with "significant coverage" to pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each editor that reviews Wertheim's books, and articles, and then descibes NPA in the review, is making an independent decision that the *topic* is notable. In terms of whether the group is composed of cranks or geniuses, they are relying on Wertheim. But not whether it's of interest to them or their readers. They decide this for themselves.

More examples:

There are a number of blogs with neutral or skeptical takes on NPA. These are of course not reliable sources, but can serve of evidence of notability.

Here is a press release from NPA. I could certainly imagine someone would like to look NPA up on Wikipedia after seeing this, since Wikipedia has a much better record of neutrality than press releases.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs)
(You can sign posts using 4 tildes such as ~~~~, or with initials, it's difficult to follow where one thread ends and another begins. Thanks Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

From WP:NOTE. See WP:GNG footnote #3: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." That is exactly the case here with different sources covering the same Wertheim sources and even using the same quotes from it. At best they count as a single source.

The Scientist is a solid source as far as I can tell. The book reviews are about the book not the organization. Complicated by the fact the book author is a member of the organization (in terms of using these sources for the org's notability vs. the book's notability). The Blogs don't count towards notability. Basically we have one source from 1995 The Scientist, then Wertheim and everything that originates from Wertheim, which I think at best counts as a single source - so two good sources total. Beyond that, there is apparently now enough sourcing to support an article for Physics on the Fringe [current redirect] by Margaret Wertheim, since multiple book reviews in very high quality sources make the book notable under WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can people please sign their contributions? Very hard to follow who is who, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree that reviews have no bearing on notability. The author of a review cannot include all of the book, and out of the hundreds of pages of material, must decide what is most interesting to their readers, and what they wish to comment on themselves. This is the exact definition of notability. Of course, this is very different from relying on a fact stated in the book, where the number of references is irrelevant. If they were using Wertheim to show the existence of NPA, then it would be just one reference. But instead they are showing which portion of the book they found interesting, which they are doing independently.LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the comment above "The book reviews are about the book not the organization.". The Wikipedia guideline is: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (Italics mine) In this case the main topic is the review of the book, but many of the reviews address the subject in detail (in the sense than anyone who read the review, but not the underlying book, would know what the NPA is, who its members are, and what it does).LouScheffer (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best those reviews might in aggregate count as a single source about the organization, since they all point back to the same book, and WP:GNG says when that happens they are treated as a single source when determining notability. That means there are two sources total: the reviews + The Scientist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wertheim's book counts towards notability, despite the fact she is a member of NPA. When a member of a group writes about that group, notability depends very much on the extent that the goals of the person and the group are aligned. So when the president of a group writes about the group, it's presumably aligned and not notable. But when Edward Snowden wrote about the NSA's PRISM program, it was extremely notable, even though he was a member/employee of the NSA. In fact it was much more notable, and would not have been believed had he not been a member. Likewise criticism of a political party is much more notable if it comes from a party member, claims of unethical behavior by a company are more notable if made by an employee, and so on. So membership in a group is not a ban on notability; it also depends (strongly) on the content of the work. Reading Wertheim's material, she is sympathetic to the NPA but her goal is to describe the organization, not promote it. Despite her membership, she herself does not believe the primary tenet of NPA, namely that modern physics is wrong. The reviews reinforce this view; even the ones that think she is too charitable towards the NPA do not believe she holds this belief because she thinks the NPA is right - she thinks it is valuable even though it is founded on an incorrect premise. So her book (and articles) definitely count as notable references to NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really I don't see where you are going with this straw man of the situation. Edward Snowden is not notable based on his own writings he is notable based on the very substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of him. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here is that PRISM was notable, even when it was only described in one source, and that source was a member of organization involved. So Snowden's revelations were solid evidence of the notability of PRISM, even though he was a member of NSA. This is a counter to the assertions made above, that Werthiem's book cannot be used as evidence that NPA is notable, since she is a member of NPA. LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the difference is that with Snowden's revelations, the investigative work of other researchers went into overdrive and now there are thousands of independent sources on the subject of PRISM. If Werthiem's book had produced a similar level of interest, then we wouldn't be having this discussion of the problem that the article can only be written from the point-of-view of Werthiem because that's the only source that's used (all the other ones are derivative of Wertheim as well). The argument is that because independent sources have not (yet) noticed the NPA, it becomes impossible to write an article on them. jps (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not arguing whether PRISM is notable now. I explicitly stated even when it was only described in one source. And this was true for the first several weeks, when all the many newspaper reports were based on Snowden's documents. It was not until, under duress, the administration opened up on PRISM that there was another independent source of notability.LouScheffer (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are dealing with problematic comparisons, then. If NPA was notable then there would be a scenario by which other independent sources would develop on this subject. Imagine that the whole Snowden thing was somehow kept under wraps and there was only one source on the subject. We'd be having this very discussion. But counterfactuals are not good points on which to base an argument. The point is that until there are others who notice the NPA who are dispassionately disconnected from the subject, we cannot write an article that both adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That's why we have notability guidelines in the first place. jps (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming that if the administration clammed up, and Snowden remained the only source on PRISM, that we'd be debating whether PRISM was notable? Good luck with that argument - it differs completely from the view of the major media of the world, who thought it was exceedingly notable while there was only one source, and that one a member. Anyway, the argument here is that the Wertheim book is perfectly good evidence of notability. It's published by the mainstream press, it's reviewed by mainstream sources, etc. The only question is whether it is sufficiently objective and independent. This *cannot* be settled by simply noting that Werthiem is a member of NPA, as the Snowden case shows - this has to be determined by content. (If another previously unknown NSA administrator smuggles out materials stating that the NSA is law-abiding, it's not going to be notable. If it claims violations of the constitution, it will be.) And Wertheim disagrees with the fundamental tenet of NPA, that modern physics is wrong. That alone makes it plenty independent. LouScheffer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing what the media and the outside world considers "notable" for what Wikipedia considers notable. One source, no matter how fantastic or exquisite, is not enough to build an article on. jps (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community appears to disagree with you. The PRISM article appeared the day of the Guardian disclosure, while there was only one source, not later after the administration admitted to it. The article history shows no voices on the talk page expressing concern about notability, nor any requests for deletion as not notable. LouScheffer (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the day of the publication of Werthiem's book, so it's odd you'd be trying to compare to the day the Snowden leaks went live. I'm telling you, if PRISM had been based only on Greenwald's piece and there was no corroboration, such an article would have to withstand a deletion discussion. These are simply not comparable situations. jps (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you honestly believe there would be a deletion discussion on PRISM had the government clammed up? That mentions/analyses in the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on, would not count, since they were all based on one source, himself a member of NSA? I think the opposite, that the article would stand, because Snowden, although he was member of the NSA, is not a supporter. Likewise, Wertheim, though a member of the NPA, is not a supported, and her book counts as a notable reference. LouScheffer (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wertheim writes in New Scientist (24 December 2011) "For the past 18 years I have been collecting the works of what I have come to call 'outsider physicists'.... NPA members insist that they can commune with [the natural world] directly and describe its patterns in accessible terms. Regardless of the credibility of this claim, it is sociologically significant." That's the attitude of a journalist studying them and finding them interesting, not the attitude of a supporter. -- 101.119.15.169 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Cullen. I'm kinda surprised to see how much sturm und drang appears below such a concise and obvious explanation. Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability. Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable whether the thing is the United Nations or the Flat Earth Society, Masterpiece Theater or Hee-Haw, Interpol or the Justice Society of America.
    The near-palpable intensity of the comments supporting deletion, especially the contortions of logic necessary to argue away the plain truth of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources bespeaks a level of zeal to banish notable nuttiness that ill-serves the encyclopedia. Multiple reviews aren't multiple because they trace back to a disfavored source. Multiple mentions in multiple reliable periodicals aren't enough because they're all, every last one, passing mentions. Freeman Dyson is writing about a crank, so it doesn't count. The Wall Street Journal and the New Scientist don't count because, um, because, well, it's FRINGE dammit. FRINGE is bad. FRINGE must be eradicated. It's not enough to put FRINGE in context. It must be ridiculed until it can be made to disappear. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. David in DC (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please keep your pseudo-intellectual diatripe to yourself thanks. It is a straw man to suggest anyone is suggesting deleting this because it is fringe. Rather people are suggesting it should be deleted because it is non-notable. Instead of making any actual argument for keeping this article you have merely attacked those you disagree with by making vague accusations. Focus on actually addressing the concerns, rather than dismissing it with your overt hostility. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A) Separating out the parts that are policy-based:
"Assuming, arguendo, that something is nutty, said nuttiness has zero bearing on notability."
"Coverage in independent realiable sources makes a thing notable."
Multiple reviews are multiple coverage in independent sources. This is agreement with Scheffer above and disagreement with others.
The Freeman Dyson essay cited above is a seperate reliable source. Again agreeing with a prior point of another editor.
The WSJ and New Scientist references count as separate sources. Again, agreeing with others above and disagreeing with others.
B) I mean this next statement literally and not as criticism: "pseudo-intellectual diatripe" is a wonderful rhetorical flourish that made the corners of my mouth turn upward, and "diatripe" in particular ought to become a neologism. With the single change of a "b" to a "p" you've turned a common deprecation into a memorable and funny one. Props to you. David in DC (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wertheim On the question of Wertheim's independence, it may be worth noticing that, in addition to writing an admiring biography of Jim Carter (the circlon guy and early NPA member who thought up the name of the organization) as the centerpiece of her book, Wertheim has also curated Jim Carter's circlon illustrations for an art gallery, has made a documentary film about him, and has appeared side-by-side with him at joint public speaking engagements, often introducing him as "the Leonardo of outsider physics". According to a New Scientist article
"Wertheim really likes Carter [and] thinks it is wrong that men like Carter are frozen out of mainstream science. Wouldn’t the world be better if... we let “a hundred flowers blossom” and granted these men some recognition? In order to show that Carter’s theory of “circlons”... is worth scientists’ regard, she narrates the theory of vortex atoms... Wertheim argues that if string theorists can spin theories of “sheer bizarreness” and still call themselves scientists, why not Carter?"
In addition, Wertheim tells us that Jim Carter introduced her to the NPA, of which she then became a member, and the two of them have attended annual NPA meetings together, beginning over 15 years ago, taking walks together in the evening to talk over the day's presentations ("with a spectular sunset as our backdrop"). Is this independence? Granted, both she and Carter regard many of the other NPA members as nuts, but that is true of every member of the NPA, i.e., each of them thinks the others are all crazy (as Wertheim herself has noted).
So, taking all this into account, I don't think Wertheim is an independent source, either on Jim Carter or on the NPA. She is clearly an unapologetic friend, supporter, and promoter of Jim Carter and his brand of "outsider science", which she associates with the NPA, of which she herself is a member. Although she acknowledges that NPA members like Carter are not doing what is considered to be mainstream science, she argues that what these "outsiders" are doing is not so different from mainstream science, and we should accord them some measure of respect and acceptance. She is definitely a promoter of the idea that "outsiders" should be accepted into the scientific community - more broadly defined as anyone who thinks of things that “make them feel at home in the universe” - which is what its members crave. (Wertheim herself notes how paradoxical this is, since the NPA members simultaneously despise mainstream scientists and crave their acceptance.)
I think what Wertheim's book, and the reviews of it, represent is really her advocacy of the thesis that science should be more like art, in the sense that anyone can pick up a brush create a "work of art" that is just as worthy of respect as a Vermeer. She talks about this at length in an audio podcast, and in some web videos. The NPA is just an example of "outsiders" that she cites to support her thesis. Since the NPA has no notability outside of Wertheim's thesis, I suggest that this topic be re-directed to the article on Wertheim, where it can be mentioned that she refers to that group.Fiddlefofum (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deletion (A7, G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeltailor[edit]

Steeltailor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been speedily deleted four times, most recently today, on the grounds of promotion or non-notability. Can we get a final declaration of this finding, and perhaps salt the article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt - the same content has been pasted onto the user page of the article's creator - User:Slinna87 - which I will tag for speedy deletion. Stalwart111 03:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. It looks like this has been an attempt by a user to constantly re-add the article. I've deleted the userpage version and nominated the mainspace copy, so putting that out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meritous[edit]

Meritous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability; no independent reliable sources are cited in the article, and Google Books turns up no relevant results. I couldn't find any significant third-party coverage from Google web search, either. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find some mention in various blogs and the like, but nothing that would show that this game is ultimately notable enough for its own article. I admire that someone was clever enough to make their own game, but the coverage just isn't there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find reliable sources covering the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ross King (singer-songwriter)[edit]

Ross King (singer-songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While participation is low in this twenty day old AfD the consensus around the lack of referencing is clear. —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Melanie[edit]

Dana Melanie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article references lack independence. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional in tone, no secondary sources, works aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenclass model[edit]

Eigenclass model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an orgy of original research.

"Eigenclass" is a term used among Ruby developers to describe the shim class created internally to support per-instance methods. Even within Ruby, it's not a core concept that's essential to grasp in order to be able to use or reason about the language. The Ruby article mentions the pattern in passing by its pragmatic, unfancy name: singleton methods.

This article gives the false impression that this language-specific feature (AFAICT, even Smalltalk has no built-in support for it) is an established topic in computer science.

The vast bulk of the article is unreferenced. Those references that do exist fall into three categories a) links to Ruby documentation b) links to articles that don't mention "eigenclass" or "eigenclass model" in any way and c) links to a single non-notable site that appears to contain the same material as the article.

chocolateboy (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics. Eignenclass is a real concept in the Ruby language community, it is a reasonable search term and we should have something on it at WP. But this article seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a massive expansion of the concept beyond what is found in reliable sources. A complete cutdown of this article to just the shim class idea could work, although making it more than a definition may prove a challenge given the meager sources I found. Merging just the definition to Ruby_(programming_language)#Semantics and redirecting seems the best solution at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_September_25&oldid=1142630203"