Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. Tawker (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denelle Balfour[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG unreferenced and tagged for notability since 2008. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced "article" with barely any informaion, unworthy of entry into an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. M.Jormungand (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources inadequate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG and overly vague annd unverifiable claims of significance ("has won numerous awards"). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to television journalists, there's often a discrepancy between how notable they seem like they should be — "she appears on a television network's national newscast every night, she has to be notable!" — and how many reliable sources are actually available to write a proper article about them with, since they're only very rarely the subject of enough coverage to get past a notability criterion. And, in fact, she isn't even with CTV anymore, having left a few years ago to take a civil service job with the provincial government of Ontario — so not only are suitable sources lacking now, but there's no realistic prospect of improved sources about her emerging in the near future either. No prejudice against future recreation in the unlikely event that somebody can actually find some real sourcing, but this version's an unequivocal delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Johnston[edit]

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

I question the notability of this subject. The only claim to notability is the Thomas Jefferson Award of the Freedom_Foundation, an award not listed in the WP article on the Foundation. Audio Bibles and Ronco adverts carry no notability that I can see. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was another claim to notability that used to be in the article, Emmy Award winner] that was removed in December 2013 and again when the speedy deletion tag that I declined was readded. Also as I was going back through the history of the article, this was changed from an article about one person to the current person. GB fan 22:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article has no references, has almost no information, subject is not notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far as I can see, it's the same person. The earlier article was about him as a film-maker, and that was delete4d at AfD. It revived, and switched in 2008 to film-maker and bible reader. Then the films were dropped. Doubts were cast on the Emmy in the 2007 AfD, as it could not be found in the Academy lists - and nor could the Jefferson Award anywhere. I can't find Johnston in our Emmy lists. You wouldn't get an Emmy for narrating the Bible or doing Ronco ads, would you? Peridon (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They are definitely two different people. This article as it currently stands appears to be about the person described in this linkedin account. Since he was the founder of a company in 1971 he could not have been born in 1968 as the original person written in the article was. The Emmy award claim appears to be from work with PBS. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources to support the information in the linkedin, but if we do, he is probably notable. GB fan 10:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be that the article was gradually switched, then. The Foundation is the 'Freedoms Foundation' of Valley Forge (no apostrophe but with 's'), and it appears to be an organisation that works with young people. I can't find a list of its award programme or a list of awardees. I also can't find this elusive Emmy. The LinkedIn stuff looks very promotional (as is to be expected - that's what it's there for...) and, of course, isn't referenced (as is to be expected). If evidence is found for notability, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. I prefer to regard AfD as 'for discussion' than necessarily 'for deletion', although the latter is often the only course. Peridon (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This 'Thomas Jefferson Award' should not be confused with the Jefferson Awards for Public Service which are most definitely notable. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Agree with Neptune's Trident, there is barely a sentence in the "article". No citing of sources or references, falls well short of Wik guidelines and standards. M.Jormungand (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching for the one major claim to notability that has ever been in the article, the Emmy, I have found nothing. I can not find anything to indicate he meets the notability guidelines. GB fan 15:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks any working references, and the non-working reference seems to be a primary one. fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Litarodi[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and since the article asserts them as being a rapper by trade, they fail WP:MUSICBIO by a country mile. The article was tagged for speedy deletion by three different users including, RHaworth and Flat Out with each tag being declined by the same non-admin user. STATic message me! 20:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's that "non-admin user" here. :-) The intro needs a re-write, but although he's not notable as a musician, he appears to be notable as a missionary, with full profiles in the CBN and DoDEA references, and a review on Cross Rhythms. Ruby Murray 20:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBD appears to be a reliable third party source so that is a start, the other two not so much. Not sure how coverage by the later two would establish any notability. STATic message me! 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of WP:BIO here, not WP:MUSICBIO. The article certainly needs work to steer it away from portraying him as a notable musician. But as the bio section already notes, he dropped his idea of a career in music for its own sake years ago, and his career is focused on missionary work. Cross Rhythms, for example, is a Christian evangelism media group, and promotes music as ministry rather than by overall popularity or chart success. I'll try to find some more sources. Ruby Murray 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 21:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLPNOTE. On the sources currently available, there is not substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article shows no evidcne of his notability as an evangelist. So, this is a typical one-man ministry; such are typically NN. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong on this, but can only judge on wha tis in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyongo society[edit]

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

The article even states "While there is no concrete evidence that it actually exists" so why is this notable for an article page if it may or may not exist? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been tagged as a possible hoax since 2014. This is not my last name (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Certainly not a hoax - Bakossi people#Traditional beliefs seems to cover precisely this topic, and is properly written and sourced. For that matter, the references currently given in the article seem reliable, and indicate that this belief system has been shared by some of the Bakossi's neighbours - it is just that the article itself is appallingly written and never directly cites the references. PWilkinson (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep - a little surprised at the nominator's assertion that as a superstitious group of witches doesn't exist, that somehow negates its cultural significance. I've found journals articles etc. dedicated to the rise of this superstition and it's very real affect on migration to cities. The article as it stands needs extensive reconstructive surgery so it gets a weak but it's very much notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't realize that Wikipedia was knowm for creating articles on things that may or may not exist and on possible hoaxes. And I said the article itself states there is no concrete evidence this really exists. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people don't have magical powers. The point isn't about whether or not there's some shadowy group out there conversing with the devil. The point is that people believe there's a group doing magic spells, and that this has a large cultural impact on social mobility in Cameroon. That is important and encyclopedic and the history of the myths and their social relevance are things to be explored and cherished.

Though to reiterate, real-life-wizardry = not real. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lotus, we cover a lot of fictional things or things that may or may not exist. For example, there is a huge ongoing debate on the existence of this supernatural entity, with no definite answer, yet it is one of the most notable concepts of humankind. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the debate of God (a heavily worshiped entity in a very large religion) is a little different than a "extremely secretive and mysterious cult" with "no concrete evidence that it actually exists". I think you guys are taking my argument way differently, any hoax with questionable references I would nominate for deletion. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are entities with no concrete evidence that they actually exist. What I meant is that it does not matter if the subject is real, unreal or known to be a hoax, what matter is that it is notable. A completely different matter is if someone creates an hoax and tries to pass it as real here, see WP:HOAX. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it should please the lady I have, in less than 30 seconds, fixed any notion of this issue, namely - A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite Serious Comment - I have nothing but good faith, but I'd just like to point something out here. It took me less than 30 seconds to change the one sentence that even hinted at the "fact" that this society existed. I then clicked on the first source given at the bottom, and was able to rewrite the entire thing, with good data that adds to the subject, even when taking into account the information already on there. I know WP:SOFIXIT doesn't mean you fix it because you are obliged to every time you see something wrong - but this did not need to go up for deletion. This is needless. If more than 5 minutes had been taken to look at the sources and tweak the article, we would not be here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ow, I thought I had already !voted, but didn't) per sources in the article and Panyd comments. Notable. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as it's been mentioned in multiple sources. Witches might not exist, but that doesn't mean that the social construct that creates them, and history of them does not. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classicide[edit]

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

Non-notable term used in very few sources, attempted PROD rejected on grounds of notability. Just because a term is used doesn't mean it is notable enough for its own entry in the encyclopedia.

A google search for the term, minus references to the Eclipse IDE (which uses the term in a different way related to programming classes) returns less than 9000 hits, most of them citation of the same few works.

At best, merger into Michael Mann could be a compromise, but I do not see the encyclopedic value of this in wikipedia. Maybe wikitionary would - as the term is not a hoax or an internet neologism, but I do not think this is the case here. Cerejota (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a side note, article was created and largely only edited by a blocked sock. So there is that element.--Cerejota (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "neologism". The term was coined by Mann in 2005, but there has not become accepted and there is no literature that builds on his concept. TFD (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to the article on class conflict? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nominator that the term is not an internet neologism. WP:NEO would only apply here if there were no reliable secondary sources with material about the term (rather than just using the term). The term is used in relatively few sources because it is a narrow term competing with others in a specialized field: genocide studies. However, the google search link above shows that it has a number of sources[1][2][3] which meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (that is, sources which address "...the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."). I would have made this into a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes myself, but there is enough material out there for an article. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically your sources are all saying that the term was coined by Mann to denote killing classes. That may meet the bar for Wiktionary, but is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the sources I linked (which were just the best quality sources from the first page of results from the above google search link) provide much more information than that, including: the rationale for the term, historical examples and their context, criticism of the term, and its inter-relationship with other aspects of mass killing. There's more than enough material to meet Wikipedia's minimum standards. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your examples are from sections of books explaining terminology. You have failed to show that any books or articles have been written about the subject. That makes it a dictionary entry. Even the "Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence" you provide as a source lists it in the glossary section. TFD (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it's a term, TFD. It makes sense that it would be explained (at length) in sections about terminology. And, as I quoted above from our Notability policy: coverage in reliable sources "need not be the main topic of the source material." If you read the policy, there really just has to be enough to enable us to avoid original research when writing the article. In this case, there are several pages worth of material from those three sources alone. These aren't the only sources out there, I'm sure, but they're more than enough by themselves to justify keeping the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The relevant policy is "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." There is no possibility of expanding the article beyond a stub or beyond what Wiktionary would include, unless it becomes a tendentious coatrack. TFD (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        None of the three sources I linked to were dictionaries, and all of them provided far more information than a dictionary definition. You misrepresented them earlier when you said that "Basically your sources are all saying that the term was coined by Mann to denote killing classes", so why should anyone take your word for the possibilities of the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not say they were dictionaries, I said the definitions are "from sections of books explaining terminology." IOW the books each contain a section explaining terminology. One of those terms is "classicide." The entry in the last source is in a "glossary." "A glossary...is an alphabetical list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. Traditionally, a glossary appears at the end of a book and includes terms within that book that are either newly introduced, uncommon, or specialized." IOW it is a dictionary within a book. And please cease your personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion. TFD (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not buy the "dictionary definition" trap. WP:DICDEF forbids the creation of articles that look like mere dictionary definition. Words describing notable concepts are perfectly allowed. As WP:NEO states: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term - That's exactly what we have here: sources discussing the term or concept, not merely using it. As such it is a notable concept, and an article is perfectly allowed. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show in what way this term is notable? Worthy of an encyclopedic entry? I disagree that we have have sufficient coverage of the term in notable RS to warrant its inclussion as an stand-alone article. I think TFD does make a very good case above for that - but on top of that the issue is that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion. Is this article anything other than a tendentious coatrack waiting to happen? I think so - because the term is not used outside a very small minority of genocide scholars, and is basically controversial. Lets be clear - this information DOES belong in wikipedia. It just doesn't belong in its own article. --Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in the way that it meets WP:GNG: we have more than 1 RS that discusses the concept. That is enough, unless you very clearly show that it doesn't fit with other policies, or that there is a sound and reasonable merge target. Now, the term may be controversial and whatever, but this is entirely irrelevant. We report controversial, minority and even plain wrong craziness, as long as it is notable. Notable nonsense is still notable. You are quite clearly stating that you do not like the concept -fine with me, but "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the spirit nor the word of GNG says that something is notable simply by being discussed in more than one RS. You seriously do not understand notability. I agree we "report controversial, minority and even plain wrong craziness" but not all of it in stand-alone articles, nor is notability the single criteria. --Cerejota (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do have some understanding of notability -I participated to a lot of AfD's through the years. But anyway GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." -Did it? Let's check sources independent from the inventor of the term. [4]: a chapter titled for the topic, with several pages devoted to the topic. [5]: different author, same kind of coverage. [6]: a section devoted to classicide in China. [7]: Entry on a peer-reviewed academic online encyclopedia (not a wiki). So we have lots of reliable sources, with in-depth discussion of the topic, from several authors. The concept clearly is notable, and no policy-based reasonable justification has been made for not allowing it to have its own article. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between a topic and a term? And can you present any sources that will provide a basis for an article rather than an explanation of what the term means? TFD (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that "explanation of what the term means" are basically the basis of all articles about concepts. Our articles about marxism, fascism and the like are, at the bottom, explanations of what the term/concept means. What does happiness mean? There's an article about that. Now, "classicide" is a concept and a term that has been used to call this concept. Take this source for example. It refers to the "idea" of classicide and the "concept" of classicide. It then debates why the concept is problematic. It makes examples from the Rwanda conflict and the early Soviet union. That's much, much more than a simple dictionary definition of a term. Take also this: here the concept is refuted, with similar arguments, again with examples and theoretical discussion. Here we have three full pages dedicated to the concept, with thorough discussion and critique, again with examples and discussion from the Soviet Union and Mao's China, for example. All these sources are by far beyond "what the term means", they are about the concept of classicide's in historical context and how is it a good/bad concept in the field. All of this means that (i)the concept has entered the academic discourse (even if to criticize it) (ii)that the concept has been discussed in depth and critiqued -that it isn't merely a technical run of the mill term, but a concept, so much of a concept that most scholars seem to reject it (not that it makes it any less notable).--cyclopia ^speak! 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm finding discussion among multiple different secondary sources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, TFD states: "The term was coined by Mann in 2005", are you kidding? Frederick Schwarz's 1972 book The three faces of revolution discusses "classicide" on pages 51 to 53:

"Genocide is not essential to communism but classicide is. In practice, the borderline between genocide and classicide is sometimes hard to determine as Khrushchev reveals when he tells how Stalin deported and practically exterminated ..."[8].

--Nug (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mann says he coined the term and the secondary sources presented support his claim. That does not mean that no one else had ever thought to add the suffix "cide" to the noun "class." I am curious that you would be familiar with the works of Fred Schwarz, founder of the "Christian Anti-Communism Crusade." I doubt Mann would have read his books, and hope you are not suggesting we use them as sources. Do you really want the article to say the term was not coined by a respected sociologist, but by a conspiracy theorist? TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want the article to say the term was not coined by a respected sociologist, but by a conspiracy theorist? What kind of question is that? Nug found that the term has been previously coined by this guy, so well yes, if it is sourced (and it seems it is) this should be reported in the article -no matter how nuts he was. We do not report what we "want" the article to say, we report what sources say.--cyclopia ^speak! 18:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable soruces say Mann coined the term. As Nug has pointed out, nonetheless, the term was previously used in a forgotten book by a conspiracy theorist. My approach would be to ignore Schwartz, which reliable sources have. But whatever we do, it points to "classicide" being a more suited to Wiktionary. TFD (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "more suited to Wiktionary" drivel makes no sense in the face of the sourcing presented - pages of academic discussion of a topic are hardly suited in Wiktionary. The Schwartz book is anyway a primary source for previous coinage of the term, even if academic sources then use the Mann concept and attribute it to him. --cyclopia ^speak! 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are writing a dictionary, then it is acceptable to look for previous uses of a term. But if we are writing an encyclopedia, then presumably we are discussing a concept and have no sources that Schwartz's writings form part of the academic literature on classicide. But again the "pages of academic discussion" of the topic are really just glossary entries. TFD (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop fabricating stuff. Nowhere in Schwartz's bio does it mention he was a "conspiracy theorist". In fact luminaries like Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley held him in high regard. The point is that something clearly used in 1972 cannot be regarded as a "neologism". --Nug (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now pages of theoretical discussion of a concept are "just glossary entries". Okay. I'm no more assuming good faith, TFD. For some unfathomable reason you just don't want the article here; at least find a better excuse. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:23, 7 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Arena-DeRosa[edit]

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

Political candidate who has not received significant coverage during his campaign or his professional career. Article is poorly referenced, likely due to the lack of reliable, independent sources about the subject. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A candidate for public office who has not held any notable positions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin High School Powerlifting[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - I couldn't find any independent sources discussing this. The organization (WHSPA) also seems to fail WP:GNG, with one or two passing news mentions online. ansh666 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SMASH (TV miniseries)[edit]

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

hardly any reliable sources to be found on this miniseries. Article is unsourced. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - it appears to have been a popular TV (mini)series. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Swedish Wikipedia version of this article is not currently interwiki-linked to the English; it is at sv:Smash (TV-serie). The Swedish article doesn't currently appear to have reliable sources of the sort we look for on English Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor of the sort we look for on Swedish Wikipedia. /Julle (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources appear to exist in Swedish, per results of a Google search for <Måns Herngren SMASH>. For example This excerpt from a 2009 Svenska Dagbladet article about the series' release on DVD calls it a "kultserien" ("cult series"). Someone who (unlike me) can actually read Swedish will be able to find more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2014 (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. Blatant hoax The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KVG Scale[edit]

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

Possible hoax. In any event, there isn't any coverage in reliable sources, and it's not notable. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only 14 total sources in Google; possible WP:NEO or WP:HOAX. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly a hoax. Article is unsourced and there is no Nobel prize for mathematics.131.118.229.18 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Holi Masti Gulal Ki[edit]

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

One-time telecast that fails WP:GNG. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable show, only piece is a promotional blurb that came out prior to airing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It is a non-notable show, of course fails WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Couple Channel V[edit]

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

non notable television program. no significant third party coverage. PROD was contested by the creator with no additional sourcing or explanation, so here we are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the original PRODder, and share the "non-notable program" concern of TRPOD. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (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. Well sourced article, meets notability, could possibly be re-named, I suggest re-naming proposals be discussed on article talk page and then article moved Tawker (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States[edit]

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

This list has a number of unresolved issues making it unusable to unencyclopedic:

It is badly defined; it is totaly unclear what "scout-like" should mean. The main sources for this compilation don't use the term ([9] [10] [11] [12]), so it is possible that it was invented by the main editor; that would contradict WP:NOR.
A number of the organizations listed is not exclusive to the US but active in other countries, some of them worldwide. The main editor insists to reduce even the articles on those organizations ro redirects. IMO this contradicts WP:NPOV.

For further issues see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#minor organizations. jergen (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against. There is no reason really given under the deletion policy. There no unresolved issued just Jergens and others' illogical dislike and failure to have sources to support their position. The article is fully sourced. We are not in the definition business, but then Jergens and other decide that they are judges in the matter. If Jergens had actually waited or even look around the "scout-like" term originated in theTemplate:Scouting in the United States and has been in use since the template's second edit (12 October 2008) by Gadget850. Spshu (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I was unaware that I was suppose to ID myself as the article's creator. Spshu (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term Scout-like originates from a troop web site. I can't consider it a reliable source. -- Gadget850^talk 19:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the source use "scouting" or "alternative to scouting" or "girl scouts". If an alternative to scouting isn't scout-like it isn't much of alternative. This is the equivalent of getting up set at used the term "state" for the term "nation" where nation=country+state then decided that it is original research. Jergens interjects his original research in claims of international and wish the Scouting WP define "scout-like". Since, it has been point out that he cannot do that (as NOR & NPOV), he is now claiming that sources are now original research as they have been group together by several of the articles (AP, NBC News, Religious News). At this point, an argument over the correct title as a reason for deletion is so egregious in nature that I believe some sort of sanction should be imposed against Jergen. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fantastic piece of work, a real credit to Wikipedia. What we have here may be a titling problem. List of Independent Scouting Organizations in the United States? How does that work for ya? Just superb work. If this for some bizarre reason closes Delete, be sure to userfy to the author because there are multiple notable pieces that can be spun off of this. Huge GNG pass and a bravo. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Also: Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States ... Carrite (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sadly this does not cover the fact that some of these associations do not condier themselves to be Scout associations, and more that they consider themselves Scout like. That is a conceit from within Scouting. They could equally all be labelled "Boys Brigade-like". DiverScout (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion about this article but have not contributed much as I do not live in the US. On balance I think this should be closed as Keep, but there are some issues. First, it seems clear, at least to me, that where there is is an article on an organisation that has a presence in countries other than the USA, then that article should not be changed to a redirect to this USA exclusive article. However it looks as if that is now not the case, but I could be wrong. Second, there is a problem with "Scout-like". Perhaps the suggestion just above is better. I also suggest that the lede clearly states that these organisations are alternatives to the Boy Scouts of America, as this is about US organisations. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it stands does not make much sense since many of the organizations aren't scout-like except in the sense of being for youth (many are probably better characterized as youth ministry), but, renaming it to Youth organizations in the United States (or creating that as a new article) and radically changing it so that it is a survey article including history with short descriptions of organizations and pointers to separate articles for those significant enough to have articles (many that don't have articles right now are affiliated with a particular religious denomination and so could be a sub-section in the denomination's article). It should clearly point out which ones are international with some in the US or are affiliated with an international organization (e.g., BSA and GSUSA) or are strictly US. The problem may be finding reliable sources for history and grouping of the organizations though something like The Routledge History of Childhood in the Western World might be a starting point. --Erp (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Split or Retitle Editor created a list using criteria that do not exist in the real world, and has attempted to remove full articles on non-US youth organisations in favour of his creation. A proposal to rename the article as Youth organizations in the United States was made on the talk page, which overcomes some of the weaknesses displayed - but the survival of this would require that the international association pages being deleted under the excuse of transferring data to this regional one stops. DiverScout (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The criteria exists in the real world as most of them have been group together in four different articles (AP, NBC News, Religious News and Patheos) as scouting alternatives. But then you don't seem to care what source say or do. The so call "full articles" have primary, no or little sources, so they should not even be article here and surely not "full articles. --Spshu (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no matter how often you rant there is NO SUCH THING as "Scout-like" as a definition. I realise that to you all of us are wrong, and only you have this right, but I'm afraid that fictional categories are not appropriate. DiverScout (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced piece of work which does a nice job of comparing and contrasting related topics. Fundamentally encyclopedic. The issue of redirecting the "main articles" should not be included into this discussion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, how is it encyclopedic to list youth organisations according to fictional criteria (or, at best, criteria that are an internal viewpoint to one organisation)? DiverScout (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zonal NePhRO scoring system[edit]

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

Very new. One pubmed result with search terms "Zonal NePhRO", which is a primary source by the people who first designed this scoring system. Suggest wait until a few independent secondary sources before encyclopedia article Lesion 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consent to delete but I don't have the expertise to research this to know if it's a notable topic lacking suitable references or if it's a non-notable topic altogether. Strictly speaking, I should probably "abstain" due to lack of knowledge about how to determine if this is notable or not. Disclaimer: I brought this article to the attention of WikiProject Medicine, and an editor who saw my message nominated it for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need a least one secondary source to show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 2 April 2014 (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. Not sure why this wasn't G11'ed to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Shinhwa 16th Anniversary concert-HERE[edit]

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

Fails guidelines in WP:EVENT. Insufficient secondary sources. Event does not have lasting effects either. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (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. Given the discussion, I do not believe there is consensus. Several editors have suggested that in fairly short time, subject will join fully pro league passing NFOOTY. Although CRYSTALBALL likely should apply, I do not see benefit the project to deleting now to re-create within months. Tawker (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that this seventeen year old is notable - He's being scouted by bigger clubs, which happens all the time, does not make him pass WP:GNG. All the reliable sources seem to be claims, with no substance. JMHamo (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the title is terrible. G S Palmer (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm pretty sure are a ton of highly touted prospects out there. Still fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has played once in a friendly game for the senior national team. but I'm NOT sure if the game was a FIFA sanctioned friendly game as per Wikipedia guidelines though. see it here and here Darreg (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Read this article from CAF official website about him here. He was recognized late last year alongside YaYa Toure by the soccer regulatory body late last year Darreg (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was definitely not an official game, it was against a club side! Giant Snowman 17:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Award he received from CAF was previously held by Obafemi Martins and John Mikel Obi who are now major forces in the African continent.

PS: The Recognition is not an Age-grade award but it's normally given to developing African players that showcase unique quality and talents by storm (though they are young most times because it's time bound).

If I may also add Obafemi Martins did not represent Nigeria at any age-grade tournament yet he won this award for 2 consecutive years.

This is just an observation and NOT a guideline --> There is presently no player that has won the FIFA U-17 Player of the Tournament (Golden Ball) that is not currently on Wikipedia. Personally I feel deleting this article is unnecessary when you consider the MVP trend. Darreg (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of WP:CRYSTAL going on here. If and when he's a big star in a few years time, this article can be restored very easily. Presently he does not pass WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My second statement was just an observation and not a guideline for it to be kept as stated above. Darreg (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since an admin deleted a similar player Dele Alampasu I think this should also be DELETED because the only notable difference in their soccer careers is that Kelechi Iheanacho won a major CAF award. So the real question should be, does winning that award from CAF make him pass GNG? Darreg (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it does not, see WP:BLP1E... JMHamo (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with long, detailed, significant coverage such as [13] [14] [15] Nfitz (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that seems only to discuss transfer talk. Also this is not a lengthy article on the player, most of the article is about unrelated matters. this is just a speculative article, as is this. To be honest, there are also WP:BLP1E issues here, if all that can be found is specualtion about one transfer move. Fenix down (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing a key element of these articles. Your focusing on the transfer discussion, and ignore the consistent element that exists in many of the articles that cover him, noting that he was "the star player at the Under-17 World Cup". Not a star player, but THE star player at 2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup; he was awarded the Adidas Golden Ball. He was also awarded the CAF "most promising talent" [16] award. Combined with the the international coverage of his transfer, his receiving international media coverage for 3 different events. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what your missing is the consensus, of which I belive you are aware, that non-senior international achievements are deemed inherently non-notable per WP:NFOOTY.

What you are missing is that WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant, as he meets WP:GNG through the international media coverage of these 3 different events. Nfitz (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If its about extensive significant media coverage of his career, he totally passes GNG. The only reason why I was skeptical about giving my keep vote was that I thought not making an official debut for Nigeria as an U-17 player will always count against his notability. but I believe his career has enough significant coverage to make him pass GNG. If I may also add, all the other 2 nominees(Ebenezer Assifuah and Saleh_Gomaa) he competed against to win the CAF Award are all professional players. 1, 2, 3. Darreg (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a professional player is not relevant, they need to be playing in a fully professional league or have played senior international football. So far, there is a small amount of WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation about these players. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only made reference to Professional Players just to prove that the award he won was not an under-age award but a continental first level Award. I know he does NOT meet WP:NFOOTY but what about GNG? I believe significant media coverage coupled with a continental award makes him pass GNG. Darreg (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that link, the award seems to be for playing in the U-17 world cup. Plus the length of coverage in that article is barely a sentence. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2014 (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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) satellizer (talk - contributions) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

Absolute classic WP:BLP1E. WP:NOTNEWS. AFAIK, run-of-the-mill regional prosecutors are not normally considered inherently notable. Ridiculous claims below that Crimea "was a country for a few days" are irrelevant - it's clearly a region (although of which country is irrelevant for this discussion). The reason why this has apparently been created is that her appearance has sparked a flash-in-the-pan craze for fan art from the Far East, and that's the BLP1E. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG as has been demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also meets WP:BASIC, significant coverage in reliable sources, expected to appear in a future GTA video game (even though I question the legality of Russian authorities in Crimea). Brandmeister^talk 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Passes WP:GNG, as is already demonstrated in the article.
And even if there were no media coverage at all, she would still pass WP:POLITICIAN as the Attorney General of the Republic of Crimea (an independent state for a few days and now a federal subject of the Russian Federation). See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Osman does not accept your definition of "independent state" - Crimea is quite clearly a region. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - A British television presenter? So what? Crimea was a state (recognized by Russia) and is now a federal subject of the Russian Federation.
    And she is notable for multiple events: her assignment as the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, viral photos, viral fan art, being put on the wanted list by Ukraine's security office, songs about her, being assigned the acting prosecutor general of the Russian federal subject, being promoted to senior counselor of justice, and multiple statements that became memes in Russia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because in Pointless, "Crimea" would score you 100 points. To be recognised in Pointless, a sovereign state has to be recognised by the UN. What do you think Richard does with his laptop? He checks Wikipedia! So, Wikipedia is the font of all pointless knowledge, but all pointless knowledge must be defined by pointless, and Crimea wasn't a sovereign member of the UN, even for a few days, so the wishful thinking of Putin and his cronies is irrelevant. More seriously, "regional prosecutor" is not a notable position. How do we WP:FUTUREPROOF this article? We can't, because she's not notable beyond WP:BLP1E. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a political nomination. Thank you for demonstrating it clearly. I won't reply to you any more. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - prosecutors of large districts are usually notable enough per WP:POLITICIAN to be kept (e.g., from New York, Robert Morganthau, Cyrus Vance, Jr., David Soares, and James A. Murphy III). However, per Barney, it's not certain that she actually had or has any legitimate authority. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly had and has now.
16 March: "New Crimea prosecutor brands EuroMaidan as 'coup'
Now: "Russia: Simferopol sniper still at large - Crimean prosecutor".
She is performing her work as the Attorney General of the Republic of Crimea and has all the authority. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Andrew (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Passes GNG, per Mr. Blanter. Bad nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - easily passes WP:GNG. She is a prominent figure in a serious international crisis. Look at the international media coverage... from Russia (Voice of Russia) to the US (Bloomberg) to the UK (BBC News) to China (Global Times) to Turkey (the National Turk). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SNOW. this easily meets WP:GNG. — dain omite 04:07, 2 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan O'Keeffe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Fenix down as League of Ireland is not classed as a a fully professional league. Finnegas (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SamanthaPuckettIndo: What's your reason to keep? JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rijome Kawahara[edit]

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

I can find no evidence verifying any of the facts in this article, or even whether this person existed. The sole source given does not even mention him. Searches in Japanese cannot even confirm how his name might be written. Michitaro (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only information I can find about this Person is that he led some obscure battle in WWII.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reasonable evidence this person even existed, and given the highly implausible name we can suspect a hoax. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just tagged the article as such. This is not my last name (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we have almost always deleted colonels and majors, absent winning their nation's highest honors. Probably fails WP:SOLDIER. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above, the sole source provided does not even mention this person, and it is not possible to verify whether he even existed. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 African U-17 Championship squads[edit]

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

Contested PROD. A list of non-notable youth players (mostly all redlinks), which fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS for individual tournaments. Previous consensus is that we should not have lists such as this, precedent set at 2014 Granatkin Memorial squads AfD and 2013 Cyprus Cup squads AfD. JMHamo (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, also no indication that the squads themselves were the subject of any significant reliable coverage per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per precedent, non-notable lists of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wikipedia:NOTSTATS talks about Excessive listing of statistics, I do not see how these squad list can be tagged as "excessive" as per GNG and having so many red links on an article is never a criteria for deletion. Darreg (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they're excessive because there is no indication that the squads attending this youth tournament received any significant reliable coverage as subject in themselves. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any continental soccer tournament notable enough to be on Wikipedia and does not have an annual squad list article because of redlinks? #JustAsking #NotImplyingAnything Darreg (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both, I would certainly consider lists of red names of players who attended a lower level tournament, the vast majority of which will never lead to real articles, to be excessive. Incidentally, if kept, the articles need to be renamed to make it clear what sport is being discussed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 9 April 2014 (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. G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Williams (Character)[edit]

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

Recently created, unsourced article about a secondary character from The Evil Dead. G S Palmer (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article at least fail WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note It also failed an AfC, but it appears that the author went ahead and created it anyway. G S Palmer (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing but a partial plot resume in painful detail.TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HomerHEVC[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable software. Virtually no Google coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turns up forum posts, but no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Devadee[edit]

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

Non notable fictional character. Storkk (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Kawaguchi[edit]

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

Article lacks third-party sourcing and in-depth coverage to demonstrate basic notability. DAJF (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep I just linked to the WP:ja article, though this is also very stubby. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how linking to the WP:ja article proves notability, since Wikipedia is not an RS for AfD purposes. My searches in both English and Japanese come up with no independent and significant RS. All I find are concert announcements where his name is just one of many in a group of musicians (the current sole references is one such example). That's not the significant coverage needed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Michitaro (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvana Carsetti[edit]

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

On notability grounds Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here I will show you lists that prove her notability:^[1],^[2], ^[3]. Rehse seems bent on deleting this article, and he had already commented that it would be on AfD after one of his editions. Antonio El Pampas Martin (dime?) 12:43. April 1, 2014 (UTC)

I said in the edit summary when I replaced a notability tag that I would probably submit it to AfD. I thought that was just fair warning in case there was more out there. As the article stands I don't think she is notable. If consensus is that she is - no problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it comes to a google search, it's quality not quantity that count. Certainly there are references, but these mostly to the works she has done, and there is little coverage actually focussed on herself.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did my own google search and didn't find significant coverage of her in reliable sources. All reporters are not notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wait...so being a national reporter on Fox News in the United States...the Spanish version anyways...and on an nationally in Argentina and internationally televised weekly series does not make her notable?? Antonio Alocado Martin (dime?) 04:01, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a notable reporter with an internationally televised weekly series. She is to the Hispanic sports fans what Howard Cosell was to the sports fans in the United States. If you want to delete her article, then do the same to Cosell's. You know, one of the problems facing Wikipedia today, is that instead of encouraging new and current editors to contribute to the project, such as in the beginning where one of the basic foundations of the project was that very body could write and edit, we are doing the opposite. Instead of digging in and helping to improve articles, we have created too many rules and if we do not not like an article, we do not even have the courtesy of discussing it with others in the articles "talk" page before nomination it for deletion. We are discouraging new and current editors. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant independent coverage of her? Your argument is both WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and wrong because Cosell was covered by many print and electronic media. No one has yet listed any significant coverage of Carsetti.Mdtemp (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm waiting to see if the proponents of keeping this article come up with some good sources that are about her instead of video, etc. of her doing her job. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this-[17]-? Antonio Sunglasses Martin (loser talk) 10:29, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks to me like you're claiming she's notable because of her relationship with a famous boxer and I think that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I have been at Wikipedia for 12 years, am the creator of many different projects, and know what Wikipedia is and is not. I thought you would read the part where it says she is a television reporter and, (in the paper's opinion anyways) the only woman boxing expert in Argentina. That she had a relationship with Sergio Martinez is inconsequential to whether she is notable or not; she is notable for being on national and international television. It just happens that the relationship with Martinez is a well-publicized part of her life too. Plus, as you say, WP:NOTINHERITED, why does not that apply to Debbie Rowe as well? Antonio Martin Riggs Martin (digame) 3:33, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

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 Userfied. to User:Sadoka74/Koji Oishi → Call me Hahc21 05:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Oishi[edit]

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

This has been deleted twice by AfD and was restored on the premise that a fight promotion had been promoted to top tier which it had not. Speedy deletion was attempted but that was declined because of restoration history.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy It's clear Oishi currently still fails WP:NMMA. I know Sadoka74 has been working hard on this article, so it makes sense to me to put it in his userspace (if he wants it). Otherwise it can be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense to me also.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I have to agree with the previous comments because he still doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I'd rather userfy than delete, although that option is fine with me. I put a notice on Sadoka74's talk page about this discussion and to see if he'd be interested in having the article moved to his userspace. Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadoka74 has made no WP edits in the past 5 days, but since The Bushranger moved this article into mainspace from User:Sadoka74/Koji Oishi, I think moving it back looks like a good idea. Papaursa (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wave Modulation (WAM)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This nomination came out of a discussion at Wikiproject Electronics which is copied below by way of explication. Spinning Spark 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brand new article. The article's title, Wave Modulation (WAM), does not seem to fit the references provided. One source pertains to a United States patent [18] but I don't see how this relates to the article's subject. Also, I think a patent is not considered a reliable source if there is supposed to be a demonstration of notability. Yet, as I said, it doesn't seem related to the subject.

The link is broken for another source. And a third source, an academic journal article, does not seem related to the subject. Does anyone know anything about this topic?

From a Google search, here is one related article: [19].

Personally, I think this topic is too new to merit inclusion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it looks like a good bit of hype, with pretty strong claims: Netowrk World and TN Technology. Patents and press releases do not a reliable source make, and I could not find any papers on the topic in GScholar. --Mark viking (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Magnacom are being deliberately secretive about what the technique actually is. Under those circumstances it is impossible to have a technical article about the subject. The current article is a mixture of truisms ("using spectral compression to improve spectral efficiency"), already well known principles ("diversity of time and frequency domains", "non linear signal shaping") and uninterpretable analogy ("1,000 dots on a piece of paper"). In its current state, I would support a nomination for deletion. It might be possible to have instead an article on Magnacom and/or its products if it meets WP:ORG but the current article isn't that. Spinning Spark 11:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark and Spinning Spark - I agree with both of you. And thanks for pointing out the mixture of truisms (certainly nothing special about this article). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not good sources for establishing notability. They are WP:PRIMARY sources which are acceptably that allow verification of technical details in articles. ~KvnG 06:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks very much like hype (WP:ADV); either the material is nothing new, meaning existing articles, or nothing is being given away here. No sign of proper notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [20], [21] and [22]. It may be hype but it is hype that has been covered by WP:RELIABLE sources and that makes it notable. ~KvnG 06:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We surely have to apply some critical processing to what people print. All we know for sure is that Magnacom intend to launch a new product at a show later this year. There is nothing we can say about a new modulation technique (even if it really exists) because we don't know anything. Stripped of the hype and vague assertions, the page would essentially be blank. This article purports to be about the modulation technique, not the company, or the launch of the product. It is those latter things, in my opinion, that the pages you link to would add notability to, but not to the actual subject. Spinning Spark 09:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable about this article or its content, and no proof of a novel electronic device or technique. Any coverage found via Google searches are public relations ploys, i.e., hype. Also, coverage via Google search does not reveal a novel electronic device or technique. Maybe in time something novel and worthy of note per WP:GNG will be revealed, but for now it is WP:TOOSOON. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (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 Alachua County Public Schools. WP:NOTBURO. (Note that Alachua County Public Schools is where School Board of Alachua County now redirects after a check of name and a move. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawton Chiles Elementary School (Gainesville, Fl)[edit]

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

We don't generally view elementary schools as sufficiently notable to have a wp article, and this elementary school does not appear to be notable in its own right. Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School Board of Alachua County per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ansh666 04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the nomination. in light of the additional source. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaviña Gourmet Coffee[edit]

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

Very borderline notability--LA Times is not necessarily a sufficient source for notability for a LA local company. Clearly promotional as well DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Don't think it's 'very borderline' of itself – it's a $100m plus business, according to LA Times, and a reference from there has some validity, local company or not. Agree, it needs some strengthening and I've added two further refs (Orange County Register, different story LA Times) and put more focus onto current business ops rather than history. It might be useful to flag up the bits that are 'clearly promotional' so they can be adjusted/lost. Would have thought an improve flag was more appropriate as a first step here so oppose a deletion until this article has had more time to be improved. Libby norman (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point I think Gaviña has become a significant national force in the coffee business. I added a source from Reuters/CNN.[23] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (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. We'll consider this a soft delete given the lack of participation. - §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PokerTube[edit]

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

The sources appear to be mostly PR, an the article is essentially an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2014 (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. A clear WP:SNOW deletion. Also, the article clearly qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#G5. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Laghari[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Previous speedy-deletion request by a different editor was declined. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument for notability is apparent - appears to be some kind of vanity page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless some notability can be demonstrated. 220 of ^Borg 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems an odd page for the third edit by a new account, that originally claimed to have been on Wikipedia for over two years. Unless as Someguy1221 suggests it's a wp:vanity page. - 220 of ^Borg 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The papers exist, but for a paper about e=mc² some citations by other scholars would help. The English is simple, would a peer review let this pass? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and likely fringe science. Peer review of cited articles seems rudimentary at best: why would a paper entitled "Interpretation of Modified Electromagnetic Theory and Maxwell's Equations on the Basis of Charge Variation" (and making absolutely no references to computers or computing) appear in the International Journal of Computer Applications? Creator may well be another sock puppet of blocked user Asifleghari aka. Laghari asif, Princeneil, Dell nole, and several others. Hqb (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hqb you are almost certainly correct. The similar names alone are a giveaway aren't they? Language is similar "Asif's equation/theory ...", same 'journals' cited etc. Nechlison (talk · contribs) may be another sock, though they denied any connection when I asked them on their talkpage. - 220 of ^Borg 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hqb with due respect, I have answered your misunderstanding regarding me and this page at my talk page and I think the point is clear to all of you now. Nechlison (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you meant 220 of Borg. I was referring to Miller Henry, not you. Hqb (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing like wp:Conflict of interest. I being an independent editor just let you know about the AfD tag placed on the page. According to the Wikipedia's notability guideline for academic see here, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", and I think the Thomas ISI indexed research journals with good impact factor indexed in different digital libraries and data bases show reliability of person's research work. Sources provided in the article are enough to identify the such notability and Hqb, if you see International Journal of Computer Applications it is just a name of the Journal which have different field categories according to the subject of science and Engineering. Since the article is completely neutral and if it has any citation, source and notability problem, I have provided reliable sources as much as available and are quite enough to show notability of person. You can discuss it, improve it or finally you can also delete it if the editors decision goes final.Miller Henry (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Note: Miller Henry has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Princeneil (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Miller Henry: I added *Keep before your comment for formatting purposes. If you are not recommend keeping the article, you may change it to *Comment or even *Delete if you wish. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found for this undergraduate student. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: As for as academic notability and reliable independent sources are concerned, you can re-check the sources given in the article. I myself have no intention for this page to be passed and allowed anyway. but being an editor, I think the person notable enough to write decent article on Wikipedia as this person is quite young and has too much well identified and published research papers in reliable Journals and his contributions on the scientist like A.Einstien, Maxwell, Lorentz. Miller Henry (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)— Miller Henry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Papers have not made a visible impact (their citation counts are low to nonexistent) and there is nothing else in the article that even makes a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somehow this looks familiar to me. Did we recently have a similar case or has this already been deleted before under a (slightly) different name. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These deleted articles and their revision histories may be relevant (I'm not an admin so I can't verify myself):

Asif leghari's theory of Electromagnetic Relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted by Anthony Appleyard on March 18, 2013 with the comment "it is an essay; see WP:NOTESSAY)"
Possibly-related items:
- Scientist leghari (talk · contribs) - blocked as a result of this SPI
Asif's unification force law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted by Gogo Dodo on March 13, 2013 with the comment "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban]])
Possibly-related items:
- Scientist leghari (talk · contribs), see above
Asif's equation and Einstien's theory of special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted by Gogo Dodo on December 30, 2013 with the comment "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban]])
Possilby-related items:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif's equation and Einstien's theory of special relativity
- Dell nole (talk · contribs) and his block log, same SPI as above
- Laghari asif (talk · contribs) and his block log, same SPI as above

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: davidwr I have already clarified that there is nothing like wp:Conflict of interest or I don't have any connection between these SPI and similar article created before. Also, if there is anything wrong in this article you can delete it. Infact I really didn't know about all these article created by banned users before. But its not my fault, I neutrally made this article. If any one of you neutrally have made the same article without knowing all these facts then that doesn't mean that you are SP of that account/user. You can simply delete this article, but as for as Wikipedia notability is concerned, this article lies under such criteria. since the article has good sources to prove notability of young person. Since the person is actually researcher, so notability can be judge by his Scholar research paper, academic career Miller Henry (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, unless someone with access to information I don't have says otherwise, ~~I'll take your word that this is an unfortunate coincidence~~. However, there's more to creating an article than not having a conflict of interest. There's writing about a person (or other topic) that is notable. There seems to be a large consensus forming that this person is not notable. Then, if and only if the person is notable, there's writing the article in a way that clearly demonstrates that the person is in fact notable, using reliable, independent sources. Then there is writing the article in a neutral tone, with a neutral point of view (the concepts are not the same). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Update As you have been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, I am retracing my previous assumption of good faith. !davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, and with a neutral point of view I tried to give reliable independent sources according to Wikipedia academic notability and other notable sources as much as available. Nothing else Miller Henry (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may boil down to the Wikipedia community having tougher standards of notability and tougher standards for suitability of sources than you do. While as a member of the community your opinion does count some, it counts about as much as everyone else's. As these standards have been developed by thousands of editors over many years, one editor's opinion is unlikely to shift that of the Wikipedia Community's existing consensus more than a very small amount, not nearly enough to change the outcome of this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: davidwr I do respect and follow Wikipedia guidelines, I am not in a position to change any Wikipedia notability standard or some thing else. I wrote the article and provided independent reliable sources as much as possible. Now, I think I should not be part of this discussion any more, otherwise some one else will blame on me as wp:Conflict of interest that is not actually so. Thanks Miller Henry (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Creator of Laghari page 'Miller Henry' had been blocked as a sockpuppet of Princeneil (talk · contribs). What a shock!- 220 of ^Borg 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a wp:DUCK, this new user Bordan man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this. - DVdm (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... Or is it? Puzzling. - DVdm (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment In light of the above, the lack of support for keeping the page, and the long time it took to expose this sock, I recommend WP:SNOW close under normal AFD rules rather than WP:CSD#G5 speedy-delete of page created by a banned/blocked editor so that any future re-creation can be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 re-creation of material deleted after a deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 3 April 2014 (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. Some issues with article, but it appears editors are working them out, from reading the discussion I believe a keep is warranted Tawker (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly artificial intelligence[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete Since the subject appears to be non-notable and/or original research, I propose to delete the article. Although the general issue of constraing AIs to prevent dangerous behaviors is notable, and is the subject of Machine ethics, this article mostly deals with this "Friendliness theory" or "Frendly AI theory" or "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" which are neologisms that refer to concepts put forward by Yudkowsky and his institute, which didn't receive significant recognition in academic or otherwise notable sources.
Comment - I completed the nomination for IP 131.114.88.73. ansh666 19:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The IJ Good / MIRI conception of posthuman superintelligence needs to be critiqued not deleted. The (alleged) prospect of an Intelligence Explosion and nonfriendly singleton AGI has generated much controversy, both on the Net and elsewhere (e.g. the recent Springer Singularities volume)

Several of the external links need updating. --Davidcpearce (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I'm the user who proposed the deletion) There is already the Machine ethics article covering these issues. The Friendly artificial intelligence article is almost entirely about specific ideas put forward by Yudkowsky and his institute. They may be notable enough to deserve a mention in Machine ethics, not an article on their own. Most of the references are primary sources such as blog posts or papers self-published on MIRI's own webiste, which don't meet reliability criteria. The only source published by an indepdendent editor is the chapter written by Yudkowsky in the Global Catastrophic Risks book, which is still a primary source. The only academic source is Omohundro's paper which, although related, doesn't directly reference these issues. As far as I know, other sources meeting reliability criteria don't exist. Moreover, various passages of this article seem highly speculative and are not clearly attributed, and may be well original research. For instance: "Yudkowsky's Friendliness Theory relates, through the fields of biopsychology, that if a truly intelligent mind feels motivated to carry out some function, the result of which would violate some constraint imposed against it, then given enough time and resources, it will develop methods of defeating all such constraints (as humans have done repeatedly throughout the history of technological civilization)." Seriously, Yudkowsky can infer that using biopsychology? Biopsychology is defined in its own article as "the application of the principles of biology (in particular neurobiology), to the study of physiological, genetic, and developmental mechanisms of behavior in human and non-human animals. It typically investigates at the level of nerves, neurotransmitters, brain circuitry and the basic biological processes that underlie normal and abnormal behavior."

Anon, like you, I disagree with the MIRI conception of AGI and the threat it poses. But if we think the academic references need beefing up, perhaps add the Springer volume - or Nick Bostrom's new book "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" (2014)? --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several issues here: the first is that Friendly AI is and always has been WP:OR. That it has lasted this long on the Wikipedia is evidence of the lack of interest to researchers who would have otherwise recognized this and nominated deletion sooner. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Second, even if you manage to find WP:NOTABLE sources, this does not substantiate an article for it when it can and should be referenced in the biography for the author. Frankly, that is a stretch itself, given that it doesn't pass WP:TRUTH as a verifiable topic, but I don't think anyone would object to it. Third, in WP:TRUTH, the minimum condition is that the information can be verified from a notable source. This strengthens the deletion argument, as there are no primary, peer-reviewed sources on the topic of Friendly AI. And it is not sufficient to pass notability by proxy; using a notable source that references non-notable sources, such as Friendly AI web publications, would invalidate such a reference immediately. Fourth, even if we were to accept such a stand-alone article, it would be difficult to establish it to an acceptable quality due to the immense falsehood of the topic. This kind of undue weight issue is mentioned in WP:TRUTH. Therefore, and in light of these issues, I strongly recommend deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, for better or worse, all of the essays commissioned for the recent Springer volume ("Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment:

Amnon H. Eden (Editor), James H Moor (Editor), Johnny H Soraker (Editor)) were academically peer-reviewed, including "Eliezer's Friendly" AI paper; and critical comments on it. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke WP:COI, as you, David, were involved with the organization, publication, and execution of that source. And you were also a contributing author beyond this. Any administrator considering this page's contents should be made aware of that fact. Now, moving back to the main points: firstly, Friendly AI as a theory is WP:PSCI, and any Wikipedia article that would feature it would immediately have to contend with issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:PSCI. That Springer published an anthology of essays does not substantiate the mathematical or logical theories behind Friendly AI theory. In fact, this will never occur, as it is mathematically impossible to do what the theory suggests and intractible in practice, even if it were. That this wasn't caught by the referees calls into question the validity of that source. Strong evidence can be brought here to counter the theory, and it would end up spilling over into the majority of the contents of the article as to why it is WP:PSCI. Should every Wikipedia page become an open critique on fringe and pseudoscientific theories? I would hope not. Further, to substantiate a stand-alone article, this topic will need to have several high quality primary sources. Even if we somehow allow these issues I've raised to pass, that final concern should be sufficient to recommend deletion alone. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Lightbound, you wrote "it is mathematically impossible to do what the theory suggests and intractible in practice". What, specifically, are you claiming is 'mathematically impossible', and how do you know this? On what basis are you confident in your original-research mathematical disproof of a published, peer-reviewed academic anthology? Have you even read the book in question? -Silence (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are referring to has already been discredited with multiple links within the comments here with verifiable links and quotes. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 09:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which refutation you're referring to; to my knowledge, Singularity Hypotheses is still taken seriously as an academic publication under Springer, and it's certainly peer-reviewed. But you're also changing the topic. How about just answering my question? Then we can move on to other topics at our leisure. What is the 'mathematical impossibility' you have in mind? -Silence (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, if I have a declaration of interest to make, it's that I'm highly critical of MIRIs concept of "Friendly AI" - and likewise of both Kurzweilian and MIRI's conception of a "Technological Singularity". Given my views, I didn't expect to be invited to contribute to the Springer volume; I wasn't one of the editors, all of whom are career academics.

Either way, to say that there are "no primary, peer-reviewed sources on the topic of Friendly AI" is factually incorrect. It's a claim that you might on reflection wish to withdraw. --Davidcpearce (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) The Springer pubblication is paywalled, I can only access the first page where Yudkowsky discusses examples of anthropomorphization in science fiction. Does the paper substantially supports the points in this article? Even if it does, it is still a primary source. If I understand correctly, even though Springer is generally an academic publisher, this volume is part of the special series "The Frontiers Collection", which is aimed at non-technical audiences. Hence I wouldn't consider it an academic pubblication.

I think that the subject may be notable enough to deserve a mention in MIRI and/or Machine ethics, but not notable and verifiable enough to deserve an article on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, there is not a single primary, peer-reviewed journal article on the scientific theory of "Friendly AI". And there is a very logical reason why there is not, and it is related to why it was published in an anthology. "Friendly AI" can not survive the peer-review process of a technical journal. To do so, such a paper would need to come in the form of a mathematical proof or, at the very least, a rigorous conjecture. As pointed out above, the book is oriented towards a non-technical audience. Again, even if we let this source pass (which we shouldn't), this is not sufficient in quality or quantity to warrant a stand-alone article. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbound, your criticisms of Friendly AI are probably best addressed by one of its advocates, not me! All I was doing was pointing out that your original claim - although made I'm sure in good faith - was not factually correct. --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still strongly support deletion. David, feel free to cite the actual rigorous mathematical conjecture or scientific theory paper that directly entails the "Friendly AI" theory and I'll gladly concede; however, if you cite the anthology from Springer, then it has its own issues, though largely moot as one source is not enough for a stand-alone article. That a source is from a major publication does not automatically make it sufficient to establish the due dilligence in the spirit of WP:NOTABLE, especially in light of the arguments made against it above. You could replace "Friendly AI" with any pseudoscientific theory and I would (and have, in the past) respond the same. This is a significantly weak minimal POV that can scarcely stand on its own outside of this encyclopedia. Yet, somehow, it has spread into many articles and sideboxes on Wikipedia as if a "de facto" part of machine ethics! That no one has taken issue with it until now is that it has simply been ignored. Lastly, I would point out that if your primary concern was WP:POV, the article could have reflected that before it was nominated for deletion, as it has been in place for years, and you have ties with its author and those interested in its theme. Again, sharing a close connection with the topic and or authors should be noted by administrators. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 23:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, what are these mysterious "ties" of which you speak? Yes, I have criticized in print MIRI's conception of Friendly AI; but this is not grounds for suggesting I might be biased in its favour (!). --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, in the interest of keeping this on topic, I'm not going to fill this comment section with all the links that would show your affiliations with many of the authors of the Springer anthology source you mentioned, and the author of the "Friendly AI" theory. Anyone who wishes to do that can find that information through a few Google searches. It is sufficient for WP:COI that you share a close relationship with the source material, topic, and reference(s) you are trying to bring forward. This is irrespective of your intentions outside this context. And note that this is supplimental information and is not neccessary to defend the case for deletion. I digress on further comment to keep this focused. Still waiting on that burden of proof that there is a scientific paper that entails "Friendly AI" theory. I'm not sure there is much more that anyone can really say at this point, as, unless new sources are brought forward this seems to devolve into trilemma. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, the ad hominems are completely out of place. I have no affiliations whatsoever with MIRI or Eliezer Yudkowsky.

As to your very different charge of having "a close relationship with the source material, topic, and reference", well, yes! Don't you?

How would ignorance of - or a mere nodding acquaintance with - the topic and the source material serve as a better qualification for an opinion?

How else can one make informed criticism?

This debate is lame; our time could be more usefully spent strengthening the entry.--Davidcpearce (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a final closing perspective, which is independent of my former arguments and notwithstanding them. Consider this article as an analogy to perpetual motion, but before we knew that it was an "epistemic impossibility". This is a concept that is mentioned in the perpetual motion article as well. The problem with having a stand-alone article on this fallacious topic is that it shifts the burden of proof onto editors to compile a criticism section for something that is so wantonly false that it is unlikely to be formally taken up. That is to say, disproving this is simple enough that one can point to the Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems for the theoretical side, and cracking and reverse engineering for the practical side. But these are basic facts within the field, and this basic nature is part of the problem of establishing WP:NPOV; while the world waits for an academic to draft a formal refutation of an informally stated concept that hasn't even been put forward as a stand-alone mathematical conjecture, the article would remain here on the Wikipedia as WP:OR. I believe this clearly violates the spirit of these guidelines, and that knowledge of this asymmetry has been used as an opportunity to present this "theory" as something stronger than it actually is. That this isn't just a matter of debate, but something so incredulous that it has been nearly totally ignored by the mainstream scientific community. That should be a strong indicator of the status of this "theory". --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David, pointing out to administrators that you may be involved in WP:EXTERNALREL is not an ad hominem; it is a fact that you contributed to the Springer source, and it is a verifiable fact through simple Google queries that you know the author(s) involved in the article. This is important for judgement in looking at the big picture of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Thankfully, someone was able to bring this information to light so that it could at least be known. What to be done about it is up to administrators. My only purpose in pointing out a fact was to provide the whole truth. I do not have a WP:COI with this topic as I did not create the theory nor contribute or collaborate with others who did. The spirit of WP:EXTERNALREL is that you are affiliated or involved in some non-trivial way with the contributors or sources or topic of concern, which is completely distinct from a Wikipedian who is absolutely putting the interest of this community first. And, in the interest of this community it should be a non-issue that this article can not stand on its own. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, I was invited to contribute to Springer volume as a critic, not an advocate, of the MIRI perspective. So to use this as evidence of bias in their favour takes ingenuity worthy of a better cause.

--Davidcpearce (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review what is meant by WP:COI. Again, the issue isn't just intention but proximity. And here is the evidence that you helped plan the book. That you weren't merely a contributor who happened to not know anyone involved. This proves the proximity of WP:EXTERNALREL: "He will be joined as a speaker by David Pearce, who has been actively involved behind the scenes in the planning of the book, and who contributed two articles in the book." This is useful knowledge to anyone making a judgement on this page. Of the two citations you brought to the table to use, both of them are WP:EXTERNALREL. What is being stated is that there is significant proximity to the sole ensemble of resources for which you are providing to defend the notability of the article as a stand-alone topic. There are more links available if desired, but I think this shows that this isn't conjecture on my part. By the way, still waiting on that scientific journal article on the theory of "Friendly AI" that you said was not factual on my part. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lighthound, forgive me, but you're missing my point. I'm a critic of the MIRI conception of an Intelligence Explosion and Friendly AI. Many of the contributors to the Springer volume are critical too.

This critical stance is not evidence of bias in its favour! --Davidcpearce (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving your comments deep consideration and have not missed your points. Again, it isn't about pro/con. I don't make the decision on the deletion, but others should know your involvement. The issue is that you originally raised two sources to defend this article as stand-alone, but it is about your proximity to those sole sources you are providing that is part of the issue. It is not to say they are invalid because of this, but that it is need to know information for someone making the final decision. That has been done, and we need not discuss it further. This isn't even the primary concern of the deletion of this article. Can you actually provide any credible 3rd party sources that you didn't orchestrate or were involved with? Can you show, objectively, why this "theory" merits its own dedicated article? Also, what about the arguments that this is an impossible concept, and therefor will always be in lack of equally credible POV to dismiss it, as I mentioned above? I've asked you to prove to us that I was wrong that there exists nothing in the technical scientific literature on the theory of "Friendly AI". I know I certainly can't find it, despite reading the literature daily. This could have been solved with a quick Scholar search. But I understand you won't be doing that because it doesn't exist and can't exist due to the nature of its impossibility. So, please, do prove me wrong, and bring forth at least one or two really strong notable sources. Otherwise, I still strongly recommend deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 02:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, any Wikipedia contributor is perfectly entitled to a use a pseudonym - or indeed an anonymous IP address, as did the originator of the proposal for deletion. Where a pseudonym becomes problematic is when it's used to attack the integrity of those who don't. I have not "orchestrated" any literature - popular or academic - favourable to MIRI / Friendly AI. My only comments on Friendly AI have been entirely critical. So it's surreal to be accused of bias in its favour. If the Wikipedia Flat Earth Society entry were nominated for deletion, I'd vote a "Strong Keep" too. This isn't because I'm a closet Flat Earther.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, David, claims of bad faith are not going to help your case. The statements made are factual and evidence/references have been provided; that is enough to prove WP:COI. Again, it doesn't require us to form conjecture about your agenda, only to show proximity. Regardless, this does not solve the notability issue of the source, nor the issues of WP:OR as per the comments above. This has now been repeated several times. I'll be stepping back from this as I believe all that is needed has been shown in all the comments above. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, a willingness to engage in critical examination does not indicate favourable bias - any more than your own critique above. We both disagree with "Friendly AI"; the difference is that you believe its Wikipedia entry should be deleted, whereas I think it should be strengthened - ideally by someone less critical of the MIRI perspective than either of us, i.e. a neutral point of view.

Perhaps I should add - without claiming to know all the details - that I am troubled by the lack of courtesy shown to Richard Loosemore below. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am Richard Loosemore, and I am also a contributor to the recent Springer volume ("Singularity Hypotheses: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment: Amnon H. Eden (Editor), James H Moor (Editor), Johnny H Soraker (Editor)). That book is not sufficient justification for keeping the Friendly artificial intelligence page: it was one of the poorest peer reviewed publications that I have ever seen, with credible articles placed alongside others that had close to zero credibility. Also, it does not help to cite people at the Future of Humanity Institute (e.g. Nick Bostrum) as evidence of independent scientific support for the Friendly artificial intelligence idea, because the Yudkowsky organization (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) and FHI are so closely aligned that they sometimes appear to be branches of the same outfit. I think the main issue here is not whether the general concept of AI friendliness is worth having a page on, but whether the concept as it currently stands is anything more than the idiosyncratic speculations of one person and his friends. The phrase ″Friendly artificial intelligence″ is generally used to mean the particular ideas of a small group around Eliezer Yudkowsky. Is it worth having a page about it because there are pros and cons that have been discussed in the literature? To answer that question, I think it is important to note the ways in which people who disagree with the ″FAI″ idea are treated when they voice their dissent. I am one of the most vocal critics of his theory, and my experience is that whenever I do mention my reservations, Yudkowsky and/or his associates go out of their way to intervene in the discussion to make slanderous ad hominem remarks and encourage others not to engage in discussion with me. Yudkowsky commented in a recent discussion: Comment dated 5th September 2013 ″Warning: Richard Loosemore is a known permanent idiot, ponder carefully before deciding to spend much time arguing with him.″. And, contrariwise, I have just returned from a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, where there was a symposium on the subject of ″Implementing Selves with Safe Motivational Systems and Self-Improvement," which was mostly about safe AI motivational systems ... friendliness, in other words. I delivered a paper debunking some of the main ideas of Yudkoswky's FAI proposals, and although someone from MIRI was local to the conference venue (Stanford University) and was offered a spot on the program as invited speaker, he refused on the grounds that the symposium was of no interest (Mark Waser: personal communication). I submit that all of this is evidence that the ″Friendly artificial intelligence″ concept has no wider academic credibility, but is only the speculation of someone with no academic standing, aided and abetted by his friends and associates. If the page were to stay, it would need to be heavily edited (by someone like myself, among others) to make it objective, and my experience is that this would immediately provoke the kind of aggressive response I described above. LimitingFactor (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: David Pearce, you are indeed a respected critic of FAI, so I would not attack your position just because you were also involved with the Singularity Hypotheses book. My reasons for disagreement have only to do with the wider acceptance of the idea and the maturity of those who aggressively promote it. Your presence in the book and my presence in the book are clearly not the issue, since it is now clear that we take opposite positions on the deletion question. So perhaps that argument can be put aside. LimitingFactor (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limitingfactor, many thanks, you're probably right; I should let it pass. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limitingfactor and David are clearly choosing to ignore what WP:COI means and why their close relationship to the people and processes behind the sources they promote would need to be a consideration. Your close proximity to the source(s) are sufficient. You can continue to WP:CANVAS, David, and bring in more meat puppets, but that isn't going to help the fact that this article can not stand on its own without a significant body of notable sources. You claimed early on that there were in fact notable sources. You claimed I was incorrect that no technical/mathematical scientific paper or rigorous conjecture exists that is published from a real source, then failed to provide or substantiate that. And the reason is because such a paper does not exist in the literature. You've been asked several times to provide some sources and citations beyond the two you did. It has been explained that even withstanding those two sources, and if there were even no issue with them, that they are not enough to allow this page to stand as-is. All you or anyone else has to do, instead of ignoring well-established guidelines, is to provide some strong sources beyond the two which have been contested. And they are contested beyond the need the fact of proximity; they don't hold up even if you had been someone else suggesting them. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 17:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aghh, Lighthound, please re-read. I am a critic of "Friendly AI"! I would like to see a balanced and authoritative Wikipedia entry on the topic by someone less critical than me - not polemics. --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have been contacted. This is out of hand. Again, it isn't the primary issue whether or not you are polemical or not; for the topic or against the topic; pro or con; love it or hate it. The sources are contested here and are invalid, regardless of the fact that you helped create and organize them. But what does matter is that you are clearly canvasing at this point. The points to be made have been made. It has been requested that someone — anyone — please provide credible sources other than these. Let us end this futile discussion on whether or not you are for or against whatever topics. It has never been the issue, only that it is important to know that you are pumping the source because you contributed to it and helped orchestrate it. For or against it, that is still WP:COI in my view. And you continue to pump them when we've asked that you provide at least a few alternatives. But we know why that isn't going to happen! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthound, you've left me scratching my head. I am a critic of "Friendly AI", not a partisan. I neither contributed to the entry nor helped "orchestrate" it. If you've seriously any doubts on that score, why don't you drill through the history of the article's edits? --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Please let's try to avoid personal attacks. I don't Davidcpearce canvassed Limitingfactor into the discussion, since they voted in opposite ways. Also, in my understading of WP:COI, it is sufficient that users who have professional stakes in the subject or personal relationships with people or organizations associated to it declare them. Limitingfactor declared them himself and in the case of Davidcpearce they are public domain, since he is commenting under his real name. The fact that they have these relationships doesn't automatically invalidate their votes and comments, it just means that their votes and comments should be considered while taking into account that these relatioships exist. Also, the fact that Davidcpearce suggested to add a source he was involved with doesn't automatically disqualify that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was repeat what I've said above at least four times. And, again, these are not "personal attacks". This is all externally verifiable information. It is canvasing because he is bringing people into the discussion from outside the Wikipedia to support his arguments. This particular argument was that he was somehow for or against this topic, which has been pointed out repeatedly to be irrelevant and not the issue. The real issue, which I keep trying to steer us towards, is that even if we accept this anthology of essays as a credible source, it is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on an impossible topic. It has already been repeated that it is not sufficient that he is proximal to it to invalidate it alone, but that is valuable need to know information. This was all stated over and over again. Reading the full discourse is helpful to prevent this kind of circular argumentation. Again, let us stop this. Provide more sources, please. The ones listed are contested because of their non-technical status, and that they don't actually substantiate the theory beyond speculation! --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Just to restate my case for the deletion proposal, it seems that this "Friendly AI" is a neologism WP:NEO created by Yudkowsky to encompass a number of arguments he and people closely associated to him have made on the subject of Machine ethics. A more apt title for the article would be something like "Yudkowskian Machine ethics" or "Eliezer Yudkowsky's school of Machine ethics", but the point is that these views are not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone Wikipedia article. This is evidenced by the fact that the only available sources are primary sources written by Yudkowsky and his associates, and most of them are non-academic and in fact even self-published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Neologism created by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Can be more than adequately covered in articles about the ~~highschool~~elementary school graduate who invented the term or his Harry Potter fanclub. Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...and adopted by big-name Oxford professor. There are powerful arguments against singleton AGI; Eliezer Yudkowsky's home-schooling isn't one of them.

(cf. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9126040 ) --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source with a close relationship. One of the authors is the director at MIRI. The other author is from The Future of Humanity Insititute. It is a verifiable fact that these organizations are aligned and in public cooperation with each other as evidenced by their websites and the cross-promotion of their member's books and articles. This does not represent a strong, notable secondary/tertiary source. There needs to be something more. Further, the article is only 7 pages long and is devoid of logical or mathematical rigor on the topic. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don;t care about who wrote the article or created the terminology. I think its a reasonable topic, and not really covered in detail in any other existing article. Further, I think it's likely to be expandable. There are sufficient secondary sources from other than the devisor of the term. What the article needs is some editing for clarity. (and not mentioning the creator's name quite as often) DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's clearly untrue. There are no notable, credible secondary/tertiary sources on the theory of "Friendly AI". Prove us wrong by linking them! It can't be done; because, they don't exist. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am troubled by the inflammatory allegations being made in this discussion (by Lightbound). First, I am not a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, nor did David Pearce contact me in any way, directly or indirectly, about this discussion. I have long had an interest in this page because it is in my field of research. I came here because there was a discussion in progress, and I felt that I had relevant information to offer.

Second, I did not become an editor in order to comment here: I have been registered as a Wikipedia editor since 2006.

Third, you do not seem to have noticed, Lightbound, that when I entered the discussion I voted against David Pearce! I therefore makes no sense to claim that I was canvassed into the discussion by him.

Fourth, The conflict of interest issue is a red herring. I do not stand to gain by the deletion, and I exposed my involvement in the community of intellectual discourse related to the issue here straight away. ::: It would help matters if the discussion from here forward did not contain any more accusations. LimitingFactor (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a conscientious reader starts at the top of this page and follows to the bottom, they will see that careful attention has been paid to separating the fact that the WP:COI notice was informational/supplimental in content. And that all arguments are as it pertains to the quality of sources. Again, and this has now been repeated many times, it is not about whether or not someone is for or against the topic, but to root out the true quality of these sources and citations. So far, no one has provided any significant citation or reference, and all that is being done is an attempt to spin or frame my responses and informational annotations about all relevant facts as ad hominem, which is in bad taste. I've already repeatedly asked that we drop this informational line of discourse on the WP:COI issue. So, you can remain troubled, but there is no issue other than the quality of the sources. To which it presently stands that there are none, and all that has been brought forth is not even substantive of the subject matter. All of this leads to the fact that this is an article long overdue for deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 21:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stepping back from the fray... I think the deletion proposal is not an easy one to decide, because the topic itself (the friendliness or hostility of a future artificial intelligence) is without doubt a topic of interest and research. I voted to delete because the page, as it stands, treats the topic as if it were the original scientific creation of Eliezer Yudkowsky. Most of the page is couched in language that implies that his 'theory' is the topic, but nowhere is there a pointer to peer-reviewed scientific papers stating any 'theory' of friendliness at all. Instead, the articles that do exist are either (a) poor quality, non-peer-reviewed and sourced by people with an activist agenda in favor of Yudkowsky, or (b) by credible people (Bostrum, Omohundro, myself and others) but few in number and NOT lending credibility to Yudkowsky's writings. That imbalance makes it difficult to imagine a satisfactory article, because it would still end up looking like a pean to Yudkowsky (on account of the sheer volume of speculation generated by him and his associates) with a little garnish of other articles around the edges. LimitingFactor (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thank you for dropping that previous line of discourse. I am in consensus with the above comment. What LimitingFactor is alluding to at the end of his comment is explained by philosopher Daniel Dennett in his paper The Higher Order Truths of Chmess. That discourse on a philosophical topic does not actually mean that it makes sense or is substantial or real in any meaningful way. So far, all the sources that can be found are merely this kind of discourse. There has never been an actual technical mathematical or logical proof or rigorous conjecture published anywhere on the idea itself, only vague language and speculation. This supports the remarks echoed by LimitingFactor and the anonymous editor(s) above as well, ultimately showing that making a quality Wikipedia article on this topic would be a feat as impossible as the topic itself. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Secondary sources found:

The Omohundro paper is a RS independent of Yudkowsky, but looks more like primary research than a secondary review of FAI. The four sources above are in depth about FAI, and seem independent. The nexus book is from Springer and presumed reliable. The singularity book is from BenBella Books, a "publishing boutique" that may be reputable. Based on the two New Atlantis articles and the nexus book, this topic looks marginally notable per WP:GNG. The article is essay-like in parts and I agree with DGG that it is a bit promotional, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A marginally notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. Even if others don't find it notable, basic facts about FAI ideas (it exists, when it was coined, a short summary) are verifiable in reliable sources. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preservation of verifiable material is preferable to deletion. Machine ethics would be a reasonable target for such a merge. --Mark viking (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of those articles above substantiate and rigorously define the concept of "Friendly AI" as a theory beyond merely being WP:NEO. Further, the books you linked are citing non-notable sources for the materials on "Friendly AI" theory and are only covering the topic in 2-3 pages maximum at minimal depth. Oppose Keep on those grounds. As for a merge, I oppose that based on the argumentation that it isn't clear that "Friendly AI" as a WP:NEO can be separated cleanly from this loose concept of the "theory" of "Friendly AI", which indeed has no credible sources which detail the subject matter. That is to say, people are saying that AI should be "friendly" and confusing or not seeing that there was indeed a speculative, non-rigorous fringe theory that specifies a kind of architecture for doing this. The Atlantic articles are blog-like, and directly link to the non-notable sources in question as well. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (OP) The "Singularity Rising" book by James Miller probably shouldn't be considered as an independent source, as the author has professional ties with MIRI: he is listed as a "research advisor" on MIRI's website and as you can see on the Amazon page, the book is endorsed by MIRI's director Luke Muehlhauser, MIRI's main donor and advisor Peter Thiel, and advisor Aubrey de Grey. The very chapter you cited directly pleas for donations to MIRI! The other sources look valid, however. I agree that the general topic of Machine ethics is notable, and Yudkowsky's "Friendly AI" is probably notable enough to deserve a mention in that page, but a stand-alone article gives it undue weight, since it is a minority view in the already niche field of machine ethics. In my understanding "Friendly AI" boils down to "Any advanced AI will be dangerous to humans by default, unless its design was provably safe in a mathematical sense". This view has been commented on and criticized by independent academics such as David Pearce and Richard Loosemore, among others, and therefore probably passes notability criteria, but most of the content of this article is unencyclopedic essay-like/poorly sourced/promotional content, and if you were to remove it, very little content would remain, and I doubt that the article could be expanded with high-quality notable content. Therefore, 'Delete or Merge seem reasonable. 131.114.88.192 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with a merge is that there still isn't a significant source on the actual theory of "Friendly AI". Thus, the merge would be based on a concept entailed by a neologism and wouldn't even stand on its own even in that context. A source merely mentioning it, referencing a non-notable primary source is still not actually telling us what this "theory" is in any concrete way; they are simply documenting an apparent controversy in an idea of whether or not machine intelligence can be benevolent, which is distinct from the actual non-rigorous concepts presented by "Friendly AI" as a theory. There are two sub-issues to be unpacked:

Distinguishing criticisms about whether or not AI can be made or to stay benevolent, which is more general than and not specific to the "Friendly AI" theory. This, doubtless, was part of the idea behind naming this theory in such a way. This is the issue with it being WP:NEO; the attempt to rebrand a concept and redefine what it means when its always been about what is already being covered under machine ethics as a whole.
Criticisms of the architectural/mathematical framework that is "Friendly AI" and "Coherent Extrapolated Volition", which are indeed not notable sourced concepts, and are WP:PSCI. This is also clear given that these concepts as an architecture are often presented or introduced in the context of science fiction/laws of robotics.

Thus, trying to merge doesn't solve the WP:NEO and WP:OR issues. The problems will remain: finding sources that do not merely discuss (and confuse) the two above issues, and finding sources that actually give a technically sound, rigorous, peer-reviewed proof or mathematical conjecture for the topic. That is, if someone is going to promote a new kind of physics or a new kind of communications theory, and we were going to cover that, we would at least need a strong source that fully details that concept. It would be fair enough to provide a criticism section under machine ethics that simply addresses the concerns of making AI benevolent instead of trying to force everyone into this lexicon, which is not only not widely supported but is becoming increasingly confused with the two points above. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over, Delete, or Merge (but not sure what to merge into). As it is, article is based on original research that does not have secondary reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Machine ethics. Not enough strong sourcing for this to merit its own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion isn't just that this doesn't stand on its own. It's that it doesn't stand anywhere. Merging doesn't solve the fact that the actual "Friendly AI" theory is WP:PSCI, of which doesn't get consideration of equal footing the same as POV and minor POV issues, as explicitly stated in those guidelines. Such a theory could never survive direct publication in a technical journal; this is why no one so far has been able to come up with an actual source that specifies unambiguously and rigorously what the theory of "Friendly AI" is. And the burden of proof is not on editors to keep pseudoscience, but to establish first with notable sources. All that the sources so far establish is that some people have been using the phrase "friendly AI" to refer to the act of making machine intelligence safe(er) or to discuss the theoretical implications. So, again, are we merging a neologism or merging the theory of "Friendly AI"? Neither appear to be acceptable, and for all the reasons that have been unveiled in the above comments. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 18:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Friendly AI is a concept in transhumanist philosophy, under widespread discussion in that field and the field of AI. I've never read that the concept itself is a theory. A hypothetical technology, yes. A scientific research objective, yes. A potential solution to the existential risk of the technological singularity, yes. Much of the article is unverified, and rather than the whole article being deleted, unverified statements can be challenged via WP:VER and removed. I suggest moving any challenged material to the article's talk page, where it can be stored and accessed for the purpose of finding supporting citations. The article needs some TLC, and is worth saving. The Transhumanist 23:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a sounding board for our opinions, nor a discussion forum to debate WP:OR about a philosophical or speculative issue through talk pages. If we followed this suggestion, the entire article would have to be moved to the talk page, at which point it would simply become a forum. That you didn't know that "Friendly AI" is part of the "theory" along with "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" is part of the issue with neologisms, and why they are usually weeded out on this encyclopedia. The desire to have ethical machines is distinct, more general, and has been in existence, long before "Friendly AI" theory came onto the scene. If we want to have a topic about making machines ethical there is already an article namespace for that. If we want to talk about the pseudoscientific, non-credible, non-independently sourced fringe theory that is "Friendly AI", which is what this page is about, then that is another issue. I am repeating all of this; because, people are coming in and expressing an emotional appeal or vote without considering these issues or looking at the (lack of) evidence to support the existence of this original research on Wikipedia. I believe strongly at this point that someone needs to at least start moving this forward by providing strong sources that substantiate this theory. But, as mentioned before, those references do not exist. Had we been having this discussion while this article was a stub it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion, but it has embedded itself and slipped unnoticed for years because of its (non-)status in the field. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't present it as part of a theory, but as the theory. It is not the name of a theory. It's the article title we're talking about here, and whether it warrants a place on Wikipedia. Problems with the content should be worked out on the article's talk page. The term and subject "friendly AI" exists as a philosophical concept independently of the theory you so adamantly oppose. You could remove the theory from the page, or give it a proper "Theory of" heading, or clarify it as pseudoscience (there are plenty of those covered on Wikipedia). Deleting the article would be counterproductive. Because... The subject "friendly AI" is encountered as a philosophical concept so frequently out there in transhumanist circles and on the internet, that not to cover its existence as such on Wikipedia would be an obvious oversight on our part. And by "discussion" (in the field of transhumanism), I meant philosophical debate (that's what discussions in a philosophical field are). Such debate takes place in articles, in presentations and panel discussions at conferences, etc. In less than fifteen minutes of browsing, I came across multiple articles on friendly AI, a mention in a Times magazine article, an interview, and found it included in a course outline. But as a philosophical concept or design consideration, not a field of science. It was apparent there is a lot more out there. (Google reported 131,000 hits). I strongly support fixing the article. The Transhumanist 02:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, in fact, a claim to a theory, and I quote the words of the creator of this "theory" and neologism from that non-notable source: "This is an update to that part of Friendly AI theory [sic] that describes Friendliness, the objective or thing-we’re-trying-to-do". My emphasis has been added so it is crystal clear. See, this is part of the problem. There is a pseudoscientific "theory" (read: not a theory) called "Friendly AI" and then there is the adjective enhancing AI that refers to the concept, practice, or goal of making an AI friendly, viz. benevolent. These are two very, very distinct concepts which have been laminated together and are trying to be used here to edge in an unsubstantiated theory. Again, there are no notable, credible, independent 3rd party sources on the "theory" of "Friendly AI", and this has been stated over, and over again now. As for wanting or desiring or wishing there was a canonical place to discuss "friendliness" of AI, this is not it unless it can be backed by significant quality sources. As it stands, machine ethics should be the place for the general overview of this field and the goals it shares. Anyone reading this so far should see clearly this distinction. This is intentionally obfuscated for a reason and it is part of why this is so difficult to separate out, unpack, and discuss. Please try to see the distinction that is not without difference. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title and the lead section indicate a concept, not a formal theory. Though Yudkowski and his capitalized "Friendly AI" and "Friendliness" were interwoven throughout the entire article. I've started to revamp the article, and have begun extricating the edged-in "theory" (per WP:VER), so that it can be properly differentiated from the general concept later (when someone is willing to include citations). The article is much more generic now. By the way, since the "F"riendly material was presented out of context, almost indistinguishable from the primary subject of the article, I've opted not to copy it to the talk page. It needs to be rewritten in context, if at all. I've got to go for awhile, and have left the "Coherent Extrapolated Volition" section for last, but feel free to pick up where I left off. The Transhumanist 05:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator(s) of "Friendly AI" theory have explicitly stated in numerous places that they attempt mathematical modeling and theories. But the problem is that there is not even a primary source that specifies the rigorous mathematical theory of "Friendly AI" or even a mathematical conjecture, let alone secondary and tertiary independent sources. I'm afraid I'm not sure what we could even do with this article except to make it a redirect into machine ethics the way that Strong AI redirects into Artificial General Intelligence. That would at least not give WP:UNDUE to a WP:NEO, which is what this page would quickly deflate to since we have now established it is an attempt at a WP:PSCI "theory". And there is no way we can credibly, reliably source such a distinction between "Friendly AI" as a "benevolence" colloquialism from the more general discipline of machine ethics. This was also pointed out in my comment below in response to User: Silence. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you will win the argument by ignoring the other side of the debate. But it doesn't work that way. The "Friendly AI theory" and "Friendliness" have mostly been removed from the article. So now the article for the most part deals with the common term "friendly AI". Continuing to argue against Yudkowsky even after he's been largely removed from the article, is starting to look like you are attempting a straw man argument. Also, your prolific replies to everybody imply that you think you can win by shear volume. But whether you acknowledge it or not, the generic topic friendly artificial intelligence (uncapitalized) exists as a philosophical concept. The term appears to get more use than the term "machine ethics". Note that "machine ethics" and "friendly AI" are not synonymous. The Transhumanist 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term you would be looking for would be ad hominem, but my comments are not about a person, but a concept, so it won't work out. It's not a Straw man argument, as I'm simply presenting a source which verbatim presents what I'm saying. Claims of bad faith do not equal bad faith. We've engaged in an AfD to consider deletion of the page. Removing or blanking, or even completely starting over doesn't resolve the issues that have been raised. Editing the article during the AfD doesn't change that we are in an AfD. The objective is to come to consensus, and that can not be achieved through editing the article. I am also not the only editor that has requested delete or merge, which would have been a compromise. My "prolific responses" are due to the initial canvasing that took place and defending against issues of WP:IS in the numerous sources, which, at first glance appear independent, but are actually by the same group of people working in concert. All of this has been documented with links. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 09:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against the article based on material that isn't even included in it anymore. That's a straw man argument. The article is well on its way to being repaired. The Transhumanist 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is noteworthy, as it's discussed extensively in the leading textbook in the field of AI, Russell and Norvig's Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. The idea is also discussed in the Journal of Consciousness Studies by philosophers like David Chalmers, and by AI theorists in publications and conference proceedings surrounding artificial general intelligence (AGI). The topic can't be merged into Machine ethics, because 'build a safe smarter-than-human AI' is a much broader topic than 'build a moral smarter-than-human AI'. Software safety engineering, even for autonomous agents, is mostly not about resolving dilemmas in applied or theoretical ethics. (And 'Machine ethics' can't be merged into Friendly AI, because most of machine ethics is concerned with the behavior of narrow AI or approximately human-level AI, not with the behavior of superintelligent AI.) -Silence (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (OP). Russell and Norvig briefly mention "Friendly AI" in the context of machine ethics. Chalmers briefly and critically mentions Yudkowsky's "Provably friendly AI" in one paragraph of his 59-pages long paper "The singularity: A philosophical analysis". In general, mentions of "Friendly AI" in secondary sources are rare, brief, often critical, and always appear in a broader discussion of machine ethics. Moreover, even though Yudkowsky idiosyncratically uses the term "friendliness" instead of "ethics", is approach is all about how to incorporate an ethical system inside of an artificial intelligence. It is neither about "friendliness" in the common meaning of the word (the quality of "being friends") nor about safety engineering as commonly intended. Therefore, Friendly AI is a minority view inside the field of Machine ethics. It's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.192 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP, I disagree with your characterizations. The relevant section of Russell and Norvig is called 'The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence', which obviously includes machine ethics but is a broader topic than that. Russell and Norvig's description repeatedly mentions things like 'checks and balances' and 'safeguards', but never mentions 'morality' or 'ethics' or the like in the discussion of Yudkowsky specifically. Morality (and therefore machine ethics) is very relevant, but it's not the whole topic (or even the primary one, according to Yudkowsky). According to Yudkowsky, building a Friendly AI is primarily about designing a system with "stable, specifiable goals", independent of whether those goals are moral.

The fact that this topic gets discussed in the world's leading AI textbook at all establishes notability; it's fine if the discussion within that textbook is "rare" and "brief", since the textbook's breadth makes it remarkable that the topic is raised at all. As for whether discussions of this idea are "often critical", I agree. Yudkowsky's views are very clearly not in the mainstream, and it's important that this article be improved by including both a fuller discussion of what those views are, and a fuller presentations of published objections and alternative views. WP can handle controversial topics fine, as long as they're noteworthy enough to leave a paper trail through the literature. -Silence (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Sorry, but it seems to me that you are going through No true Scotsman route to argue that Friendly AI is not in Machine ethics. Russell and Norvig discuss it in a section which has "Ethics" in its title, and somehow it is not about ethics because they didn't drop the word in the specific paragraph? Come on! As for notability, I agree that the topic has some notability, but the notable and reliable material available is very scarce. If you where to combine all the reliable secondary source you would get perhaps two or three paragraphs worth of content. Is that enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? How does that compare with other views in machine ethics that may be even more notable among experts but don't happen to be backed by a large-ish community like LessWrong? Does having a stand-alone article for Friendly AI give it a fair representation, or undue weight? 93.147.153.8 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, about your statement: "most of machine ethics is concerned with the behavior of narrow AI or approximately human-level AI, not with the behavior of superintelligent AI". That is your opinion. The following is rhetorical, but explains why we have WP:WEASEL. How much is "most"? At what point does that subjective interpretation become justified in a neutral observer's eyes? Where has it been rigourously defined that there is a categorical exclusion in the type of automation or its level of complexity or "intelligence" that makes it outside the domain of machine ethics? These are not answerable in a way that would justify what it is you are attempting to do. The source from Russell and Norvig? I just looked at the table of contents and can't seem to find even a sub-heading on the mention of "Friendly AI" as a theory. Could you show a page number? Does this source substantially cover the WP:PSCI "theory" of "Friendly AI" as opposed to the neologism "friendly" being passed off as colloquialism for "benevolent"? Lastly, the original theory and all of the related original work, as non-notable as it is, has been regarding the philosophical, ethical, and theoretical implications of the ability for it to make decisions and definitely not about the "software safety engineering". If that is where we are headed then that is well outside the scope of this article's conception. Further, please see comment above (diff) pointing out that this article's topic is about an attempt at establishing WP:OR as a "theory". I provided, above, evidence of a claim to a "theory", which I am linking again for posterity. "Friendly AI" theory has never been about "software safey". By their organization's own admission, it's been purely a research and theoretical issue and not an engineering one. Here is a quote from the director of MIRI explicitly stating this in a recent article (literally, days ago): "If we can reformulate the important philosophical problems related to intelligence, identity, and value into precise enough math that it can be wrong or not, then I think we can build models that will be able to be successfully built on, and one day be useful as input for real world engineering." In fact, the entire post there is exactly about this, that it would be "unethical and stupid [sic]" to do so. This is their own words. It is exactly opposite of the claims you are making and by the very people pushing this fringe theory. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See section 26.3, 'The Ethics and Risks of Developing Artificial Intelligence'. Friendly AI is also discussed in the book's introduction (p. 27), in its general discussion of human-level-or-greater artificial intelligence; 'Friendly AI' is one of the main terms it highlights as important for anyone acquiring an introductory understanding of the contemporary field of AI. And, yes, it's not just a homonym; Yudkowsky is cited multiple times, the term is capitalized, etc.

"That is your opinion." - It's my assessment. Whether it's my "opinion" depends on whether it's grounded in fact, since not all beliefs or judgments are mere 'opinions'. Beware of polemical framings. See e.g. the contents of Anderson and Anderson's anthology on Machine Ethics. There's a paper or two that discuss superintelligence, but most do not. "How much is "most"?" - Minimally: Less than 50% of machine ethics is about the ethics of superintelligent agents. "regarding the philosophical, ethical, and theoretical implications of the ability for it to make decisions and definitely not about the 'software safety engineering'" - Can you cite a source that shows this? This Luke Muehlhauser interview seems in tension with that claim: Muehlhauser repeatedly suggests that it's misleading to describe the AIs Yudkowsky/MIRI worry about in human terms, and that terms like 'decision' and 'goal' are mostly useful shorthands rather than anything philosophically deep. He suggests thinking of AIs as 'equations' or 'really powerful optimization processes' when we're tempted to overly anthropomorphize them. -Silence (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my response to User:Silence was deleted. In which I explicitly did substantiate the question they are asking. I'm going to have to go through the log to find it. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 05:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated my response to you, User:Silence to my actual original edit (diff). I deeply substantiated their position in their own words with those links, as I anticipated that such a thing would be contested. Again, the book you reference does not provide the mathematical theorem or mathematical conjecture of "Friendly AI" theory, which is the modus operandi of MIRI and "Friendly AI" theory. It's what it's always been about, and they explicitly eschew the "engineering side", as evidenced by their own words from articles just days ago. I don't feel that this is the place to have a technical or philosophical discussion on this topic. This is about whether this page should be deleted, and no one, not a single person, has been able to provide a source that substantiates the WP:PSCI of "Friendly AI" theory. Attempting to segue into another category based on the current wording and narrative coming out of MIRI isn't going to help substantiate this concept or this page, as that has never been and, by their admission, is not what "Friendly AI" theory is about. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 06:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my fault via an edit conflict as you were revising your comment. To respond to your added points: The article seems to mainly be about the hypothetical agent called 'Friendly AI', not about 'Friendly AI theory', the research initiative or AGI subdiscipline concerned with forecasting, understanding, designing, etc. Friendly AIs. I confess I don't understand what your concern is; the existence of the word 'theory' does not make a topic non-notable. (I'm also not clear on what you think the content of 'Friendly AI theory' is supposed to be; if it's a fringe belief, what belief, exactly, is it?) Certainly there are claims being made here, and hypotheses and predictions put forward; Wikipedia should report on those claims, citing both noteworthy endorsements and noteworthy criticisms of them.

"the book you reference does not provide the mathematical theorem or mathematical conjecture of "Friendly AI" theory" - This seems to be OR on your part. There is no such thing as a 'Friendly AI theorem' or 'Friendly AI conjecture'.

"no one, not a single person, has been able to provide a source that substantiates the WP:PSCI of 'Friendly AI' theory." - Er, no? Russell and Norvig has been cited. Go look at a copy of the text. If an AI topic gets cited in Russell and Norvig, that's the end of the discussion as far as notability goes. The only question now is how best to organize the content on WP, not whether the content is encyclopedic, significant, verified, etc. -Silence (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a theory and it is also a goal. I know this is confusing, but that is due to the unfortunate naming of it. Here is the direct evidence that it is a claim to a theory by its creator, and I quote: "This is an update to that part of Friendly AI theory [sic] that describes Friendliness, the objective or thing-we’re-trying-to-do". My emphasis is added. What I am saying is that, as an article about the fringe theory, which does not exist in a mathematical formulation anywhere, it can not stand. It thus comes down to the article being about a goal that happens to be named "Friendly AI". Unlike the neologism we are debating, "Strong AI" has been in use for decades, but was successfully debated to be redirected, and it is mentioned in the lead of the AGI article. But only a handful of authors, relative to the decades worth of "Strong AI", have taken up this nomenclature of "Friendly AI", despite it having been around for nearly a decade. And it still took a significant effort to get that redirect done if I'm not mistaken. Based on this, it is definitely undue weight when we consider the balance of other topics in this field. Simply having a few sources do not constitute unrooting the entierty of existing literature on machine ethics. To have a full stand-alone article when a subsection with a POV balanced to the rest of machine ethics discourse would suffice on that page. It is undue weight especially because ultimately the entire point of "Friendly AI" was that there is and always will be only one way to do it right. And that is stated everywhere in its materials. Not only is that assertion untrue, the burden of proof rests on them, and any editor, that would try to bring WP:FRINGE here as a stand-alone topic. This isn't a complex issue, but it is obfuscated due to the naming. We all must accept the facts that evidence has shown that it is both a theory and a goal, often at the same time, especially from its adovcates. But if we are going to write an article on this, it has to be able to stand. Those sources you mention are not alone in name dropping the words "Friendly AI", and also confusing it as a goal and a theory. But nowhere do we have the credible materials we need, not even from a primary source, on the actual mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture of the theory itself. Hence, it collapses to purely a semantic issue about whether the goal of making AI "friendly" is or is not part of machine ethics. And, by their own admission, that is the area they work in; that they are purely theoretical, mathematical, and based on logic and decision theory, meta-ethics, etc. So it rightly belongs, at best, and that is a stretch, as a minor POV in machine ethics as it certainly is not widely accepted as part of the scientific consensus. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a theory and it is also a goal." - Neither of those is a well-defined term. By 'theory' you might mean a body of knowledge, a body of beliefs, a field of inquiry, a scientific theory, a scientific hypothesis, etc. By 'goal' you might mean a state of affairs that's desired, or the desire itself, or some concrete object involved in the desired state of affairs. Yet you seem to want to get a lot of work done using these amorphous terms, in spite of the fact that the article we're discussing is Friendly AI (the topic being: a specific class of hypothetical agent), not Friendly AI theory. A Friendly AI is a kind of agent, not a kind of theory; and the fact that there is a thing (or things) called 'X theory' that are associated with X, doesn't tell us anything directly about the nature of X itself.

'Strong AI' is a redirect because it's ambiguous, not because it's non-noteworthy. So I don't see any direct relevance to the term 'Friendly AI'.

"It is undue weight especially because ultimately the entire point of "Friendly AI" was that there is and always will be only one way to do it right." - That way being...? A topic can be noteworthy even if some people have normative beliefs about the topic. E.g., 'Marxism was proposed as the right way to organize society' is not a very good reason for deleting the article Marxism...! Likewise 'alternating current was proposed as the right way to transmit electric charge' is not a reason to delete the article Alternating current.

"nowhere do we have the credible materials we need, not even from a primary source, on the actual mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture of the theory itself" - There is no such 'mathematical proof, theorem, or conjecture'. You confabulated it yourself. So it's not super surprising that you can't find the thing no one ever claimed existed..?

I already refuted the claim that Friendly AI theory is a subdiscipline of machine ethics. My claim wasn't 'it's an engineering topic, therefore it's not machine ethics' (which is a non sequitur, false, and has been asserted by no one). Rather, my claim was 'making an agent moral isn't the same thing as making it safe, and Friendly AI theory (the research project / subfield) is mainly about making it safe'. Obviously the two aren't unrelated, but they aren't in a subset relationship either. -Silence (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author of "Friendly AI" himself has said it is both a theory and a goal by the quotes I gave. We can agree to disagree on this, the direct evidence is in my corner on that. As for your WP:OR theory that we ought not merge or make it a POV in machine ethics, that's not relevant as I don't accept the rejection that an article called "Friendly Artificial Intelligence", which has been stated by the creator of the theory and the goal itself, and to which 90% of the article's body text refers, is not about "Friendly AI" theory, CEV, and the "Friendliness" goal. Any reader thus far should concede this point. Hence, the original issues I've raised stand. Simple contradiction in the face of such obvious evidence doesn't follow logically. It's interesting that anyone could ignore direct wording from the author of the very concept we're debating... I'm not buying that this article is not about that which its content clearly indicates it is. So, we are at an impasse and I don't see any further reason to continue our dialectic unless new arguments are presented. I rest my position against your points as they stand. If new arguments to which we can make progress on are presented, then I'll rejoin on those talking points. But since this is already getting extremely long, I won't just engage in simple contradiction. I feel the evidence stands for deletion. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 07:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The author of "Friendly AI" himself has said it is both a theory and a goal by the quotes I gave." - Where did I say anything to the contrary? The point I made wasn't that there's no such thing as 'Friendly AI theory'; it was that the existence of 'X theory' doesn't establish that 'X' is non-noteworthy or otherwise unencyclopedic. Your original grounds for deleting the article were refuted in my first comment, so I don't know anymore what your new concerns are. Possibly you should re-propose deletion in a few weeks or months after you've looked at the sources I cited and had time to organize your concern a bit.

"As for your WP:OR theory that we ought not merge or make it a POV in machine ethics" - ??? Have you read WP:OR? You cite policy and guideline names, but in strange contexts that don't seem to have much to do with the contents of the WP-namespace pages.

"I don't accept the rejection that an article called "Friendly Artificial Intelligence", which has been stated by the creator of the theory and the goal itself, and to which 90% of the article's body text refers, is not about "Friendly AI" theory, CEV, and the "Friendliness" goal" - The article as it's currently written is about Friendly AIs, not about those things, which would be the central topic of articles called Friendly AI theory, Coherent extrapolated volition, and perhaps Friendliness in artificial agents. Obviously all of those topics are extremely relevant to the 'Friendly AI' page, but it's a fallacy of equivocation to conflate 'X is about Y' in the sense of 'X is in some way relevant to Y' with 'X is about Y' in the sense of 'Y is the topic of X'. -Silence (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a WP:FRINGE theory? I just found out this very page used to be called Friendliness Theory, which now redirects to this page and had previously been nominated for deletion. Here is the discussion on the talk page. So, that, plus the above arguments, should slam the door on that issue. This has always been both a theory and a goal. And, as a theory, it can not stand on its own, as I've repeated now many times. Show the peer-reviewed mathematical proof or mathematical conjecture to counter this. See above for many pieces of evidence that the author claims it as a theory as well. So much evidence at this point I can't see any reasonable editor continuing to contradict it in good faith. Strongly recommend delete. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 07:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a WP:FRINGE theory? I just found out this very page used to be called Friendliness Theory [....] And, as a theory, it can not stand on its own" - I can't tell whether you just aren't expressing yourself clearly, or whether you don't understand the varied ways the word 'theory' is used (or, e.g., that 'theory' is not the same thing as 'mathematical theorem', even in the context of mathematical logic) or the policies and community norms on WP. You seem to be an experienced editor, yet you don't seem to see the obvious problem with deleting all articles that are about 'theories'. No one has claimed that Yudkowsky's view is the mainstream, establishment AI view. But it's acknowledged and engaged with and taken seriously by at least some of the biggest names in mainstream AI, so the topic is encyclopedic, by ordinary Wikipedia standards.

You seem to want to delete it because you dislike Yudkowsky's views; but 'Yudkowsky's views are false' is not grounds for deletion, any more than 'Yudkowsky's views are a theory' is. I noted already that Marxism is not a mainstream view in contemporary economics, and is a 'theory' -- a fringe one, at that -- yet 'Marxism' gets its own page. Ditto intelligent design. So, again, I have to note that your arguments are just not relevant to the issue of deletion. If you think Yudkowsky is a pseudoscientist, go find reputable sources saying as much, and help make WP's coverage of the topic comprehensive and useful. Deleting every topic you think is pseudoscientific isn't how WP works; WP reports on demarcation controversies in the sciences, but it does not try to adjudicate them all. Nor does it try to use its inclusion criteria to bludgeon noteworthy views it dislikes out of memetic existence.

"Show the peer-reviewed mathematical proof or mathematical conjecture to counter this." - A third time, I note this is something you made up, not something with any basis in any external text, including Yudkowsky's. You simply made the leap from 'Yudkowsky is writing about something mathematics-related and used the word "theory" for something epistemic, THEREFORE Yudkowsky is claiming to have a mathematical conjecture, THEREFORE if the formalized conjecture is not provided the topic is not encyclopedic'. None of these leaps in logic has any textual basis. You really did just make them up. If you're interested in promoting encyclopedic accuracy and not spreading fabrications of any sort, you won't keep repeating this claim until you've actually found it stated in the literature.

"So much evidence at this point I can't see any reasonable editor continuing to contradict it in good faith." - Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of the many community norms you need to spend a bit more time with. If you find it inconceivable that any human being could possibly disagree with you without being evil or deceptive in some fashion, that probably says more about the limits of your imagination than about the limits of human error. Suffice it to say that I disagree you've provided much evidence (or even, at this point, a coherent argumentative skeleton into which evidence could be fit). Yet I'm pretty sure I'm not an evil mutant troll who hates Wikipedia and puppies. :) So, maybe dial the theatrics back, at least a notch or two? -Silence (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a strong case has been made for keeping the article. Now, the main thing concerning me is the length of this discussion compared to the length of the article. We should get back to building the encyclopedia, by working on the article itself. The Transhumanist 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the evidence and arguments brought up is not consensus. We're in disagreement and that's OK, as I've stated above. Insulting or attempting to attribute statements I've not made is not going to help reach consensus. I would appreciate if we kept the discussion on the arguments, as it is becoming difficult to see good faith. Also, I did not nominate this page to be deleted. So, attempting to frame the "deleting every page you see" bit is simply WP:BAIT, of which I'm not biting. Attempting to paint my position as being against a person or persons is also not going to help your case, as I am and always have been on policy; thankfully, I've been always civil and my comments reflect that here. I understand this must be frustrating, but, again, I would appreciate if we addressed ideas and arguments and not each other. I wonder who to contact when an administrator is doing this? I'll have to look into it. It is really unfortunate to see. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbound: Your edits connected to this AfD make up over 11% of your contributions to Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON and give it a rest. BMK (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would expect a very long discussion like this to affect my stats, as I have been away from the Wikipedia for years and have traditionally been a light editor. Also, entry length does not model contribution. If that were the case, those who do line-editing would also seem biased on complex topics requiring extended discussion. I've been responding to people in good faith and on point, and with new materials and evidence. I hear you, and I'm stepping back regardless, but it is because evidence is being ignored. Nothing further can be done. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Fringe or not, this concept is a relevant subject of debate. The topic was discussed in the 1990s already, in the context of extropianism and transhumanism. Current article does need balancing. I don't see how a merge with machine ethics would improve. Therefore I vote to keep and expand. — JFG ^talk 11:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (OP) Please provide reliable sources. The fact that a meme may have been circulating in online communities is not, by iself, grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. 131.114.88.192 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing problems still apparent, e.g. Norvig source added in this diff is WP:1R and WP:E=N:, i.e. existence ≠ notability, does not substantially cover topic (because it is a tertiary source) in way that "removes need for research" as per WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Should be WP:IMPACT and WP:SCICON from "significant multiple independent sources". Source from Springer, "Singularity Hypothesis", proven to have issues with WP:INDEPENDENT as early comment above (diff) indicate with evidence. Editors attempting to WP:AKON by editing main article, but still have not brought numerable sources to overcome objections. Opinions on the WP:FACTORS and subjective importance of the topic do not overcome sourcing concerns. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 12:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the Russell/Norvig citation mostly renders your concerns moot. If the only citation for a topic at a given time is Britannica, it's probably noteworthy, because Britannica filters strongly for noteworthiness. Similarly for a highly esteemed introductory biology textbook and a biology topic; and, here, for a highly esteemed AI textbook and an AI topic. You also don't seem to have noticed that I added two independent scholarly references to the lead, not one; so your citations of WP:1R and WP:E=N are strange.
Your citation of WP:TRIVIALMENTION demonstrates to me that you haven't looked at the source text I cited, yet are still making strong claims about it based on some intuition that it must be a trivial, passing, tangential, one-sentence mention. This is not the case, in spite of the obvious space constraints imposed by the huge range of topics R/N have to cover.
Your self-citation seems to only be about David Pearce and whether he was involved in Singularity Hypotheses (which could be used to establish COI, or, equally, to establish relevant expertise). I don't see anything about whether or why Singularity Hypotheses is not a reliable source.
WP:AKON is not relevant here, as your claim 'this is not a noteworthy article' is what's under dispute. Adding references to establish notability is precisely what's called for in notability AfDs, and it doesn't make sense to dismiss scholarly sources on the grounds that if nothing were useful for establishing notability, the article would need to go. Go actually read WP:AKON. (And the new sources.) -Silence (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:MASKing at this point. The Norvig source is a tertiary source by definition; an introduction/survey/handbook to the whole of the field of AI. Even if interpreted as secondary by some stretch, one or two sources do not constitute WP:SCICON and "significant independent sources". To be clear: we're talking about only a few sources brought forward since AfD started, and that's all that has been brought forth when we exclude the Springer volume. And as for that Springer volume, which has been refuted by many editors above, two points: (1) again, it is not just violating WP:INDEPENDENT because of the orchestration evidenced, but is further weakened that authors/individuals closely related to the author of "Friendly AI" are part of the volume. Evidence of that relation can be shown here and here by cross-referencing the authors of the Springer volume. On the MIRI staff page you will find the names: Helm, Bostrom, Yudowsky, Muehlhauser. Bostrom's connection to Pearce is public knowledge, but can be shown here, as an article from The Guardian and here, under the FAQ of Humanity+, the organization they co-founded. To be WP:INDEPENDENT means fully and completely independent, not merely the appearance of independence. I suspect this is why there has been such heated WP:POV RAILROAD against me for pointing out these journalistic facts. (2) The Springer volume is listed as "Content Level: Popular/general" and is part of the "The Frontiers Collection" series and not part of the technical journals. This was pointed out above by other editors as well, which I already diffed. I'm not going to reply further on this line of argumentation. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory books are generally a mix of secondary and tertiary material; large portions of Russell and Norvig are I think secondary, because the field of AI itself is relatively fast-changing and new. I don't know whether to classify the Friendly AI stuff as secondary or tertiary; since the distinction is fuzzy to begin with, it's probably a mix of the two. Secondary and tertiary sources are both good for citation; secondary sources are preferred for more detailed presentations, tertiary sources are good for broad overviews. When the tertiary source is as widely cited and respected as R/N, it's also useful for locating the topic in its academic context and establishing notability. Primary sources too are fine for citing encyclopedically, as long as it's to fact-check a secondary source or cite an isolated claim, not to synthesize multiple claims in a novel way.

"we're talking about only a few sources brought forward since AfD started" - Yes, that's normal in notability AfDs. People who think the topic is noteworthy throw some quick references into the pot, and we reassess. AfDs are short, so in most cases the entire job of adding new sources isn't finished during one, but if in such a short span of time we find a lot of really high-quality references (as in this AfD), that's very promising. -Silence (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for Reformatting[edit]

(this section moved to the talk page by Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER)

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.

List of successful rickrolls[edit]

The result was merge selectively to Rickrolling#Examples.
For now I will simply redirect the page. Editors who wish to copy across any appropriate content may do so from the latest version of the article, paying due attention to WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, WP:NOT and other relevant content policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I had initially closed the discussion as "merge", but have revised my view after a discussion on my talk page with an editor who challenged that closure. I am persuaded that most of those in favour of merger did not actually oppose deletion, and that the deletionists had a much more compelling argument: that since all the properly sourced material had been copied from Rickrolling#Examples, there is nothing to merge. Many thanks to Flatscan for taking the time to set this out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a serious nomination, despite rickrolling below not being so. Definition of scope is unclear, content is not encyclopedic. Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is an acceptable alternative to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination's concerns. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material that was covered in reasonable detail back into Rickrolling#Examples. ansh666 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, do whatever we talked about way down there. ansh666 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh wait, this is serious? Ignore the message on my talk page then. Anyway, I created this because it was getting too big for the main article, and as long as it's well-sourced, I say we keep it. The lede might have to be reworked a bit, but I'm not seeing the OR you're talking about. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Who defines "notable" when it comes to rickrolls? Who determines what makes a rickroll "successful"? That's what we don't have in this list, and what we need per WP:LSC (WP:CSC has good examples of solid criteria). If we are the one who determines what makes a rickroll notable, and cherrypick which ones are "successful", it's OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rewrote the lede to answer these questions (Covered in the news and pulling off the surprise of making the prankee watch the video, respectively) and clarified a bit about what the list even is. I think that if we stick by those criteria, we'll be fine and don't have to worry about being picky-choosey. As for merging back into the main article, I think that this list is a little too long to be able to have more than a few especially notable ones there. I'm not able to check the notability of each source right now due to time constraints, but please feel free to take out any non-notable/unreliable stuff. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to rickrolling and brutally prune out the junk. Even ignoring what "successful" means I see no point to having a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rickrolling#Examples. The separate article does not seem necessary, and all of the important information from can be included in List of successful rickrolls can be added to that section. Steel1943 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - splitting well referenced list articles, seems reasonable per Supernerd. Clearly it is notable, per widespread coverage, though the article could use a more developed lead, Sadads (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rickrolling#Examples - IMHO this doesn't need to be separate, Could just shorten it & add to Examples really... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised that I'm voting to keep such a list, but the article appears to be a well-documented list of notable rickrolls, and the article is long enough to separate from the main rick-rolling page. I would switch "successful" with "notable" in the title. Orser67 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be changed to Notable, as listing all successful would take up lots of space and be impossible to maintain. But a list like this should stay up. Maybe move Examples here? 139.55.207.98 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that'd be a more fitting name. Assuming this page survives the AfD, I'd like to see it renamed. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Meh, April Fools .... 19:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Bearian: no, not April Fools! ansh666 06:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rickrolling#Examples. Much of the content is reliably sourced I have no problems there. I just think, given the list's size, it can be contained quite comfortably within the main Rickrolling article. The single-sentence entries (Dan Kaminsky, Michelle Obama, iPhone worm) should probably be moved the "Others" category, which itself has at least a couple examples which are unreferenced/dead linked (the Baltimore flashmob, the FM episode) and can be removed. Having a tight, well-referenced single article is preferable to me rather than having duplicated "Further reading" sections or having the first Rickroll example (GTA IV) in one article and subsequent examples in the other. Gong show 20:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I lean toward inclusion in many, many cases, but this is just too far. I mean, come on. I don't think I can even make an eloquent case here. I'm at a loss for words. Scroll up and read the candidate's title. Then look away, and then read the article title again. Do you see what I mean? --Moralis (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could anyone !voting keep seriously imagine featuring this on the Main Page (yes, I know we don't usually feature lists there, just go with it)? This is not an encyclopedic subject. --N Y Kevin 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it should be changed to Notable. There is no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.69.194 (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definition of scope is unclear? Yes, but that can be fixed. Content is not encyclopedic? It clearly is. Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR? Not even close, and even if it is, defining the scope should fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Combination of information like this into a list is WP:OR?" - Yes, it is. If the criterion were objective (say, for an airplane crash list, at least 100 dead), it would not be OR. But who defines "Successful"? The list compiler. That is OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So rename it List of notable rickrolls like the IP and User:Orser67 said, and we'd be fine, right? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Much discussion seems to concern the notion that this article could be renamed or merged, and we'd be good to go. I'd like to point out that well over half of this article is still cruft, and most of it's irrelevant to its own subject. The first three sections before "April Fools 2008" describe events that, according to the primary author's own revamped lead, don't really qualify as rickrolls. The section immediately following concerns a security consultant talking about rickrolling. The Michelle Obama section is again appropriate, but the blurb about Barack Rolling is once again just a paragraph about a fan video. It belongs in the main article, not here. Then we're back to actual instances of rickrolling, though, as Gongshow pointed out, many of the shorter entries should be moved to the "Others" section, which should be heavily trimmed. And all of this, of course, on top of the fact that there is a Wikipedia article titled, "List of successful rickrolls", which still has me doing double-takes. I stand by my earlier !vote to delete, but if we decide to keep this thing anyway, please don't think it's going to be as simple as renaming it. --Moralis (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly identified problems that need to be fixed, but problems that need to be fixed are not valid reasons for deletion. For that, we need to identify problems that need to be fixed and cannot be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that, if we fix everything that's wrong with this article, there won't be much of an article left. I doubt that an appropriately trimmed-down version of this article would even be a controversial candidate for deletion; it'd be mostly empty, and mostly valueless, given what would be left. Hence, merging it into its main article seems, to me, like the only viable way to keep this content. --Moralis (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Rickrolling. bd2412 T 21:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Merge to Rickrolling is fine, though I share with User:Moralis a sense of astonishment that this article exists. Xoloz (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page seems to be an indiscriminate collection of every time rick-rolling came up in the news or other significant sources. ~~Get rid of most of the non-notable or trivial ones, then merge a few of the more significant ones to give an example of a rickroll in the main article.~~ Turns out all of the "notable" rickrolls can be found in the history of the rickrolling article, so I'm changing my vote to a delete. But seriously, we do not need articles about every time a notable meme was pulled off. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggested Compromise. It appears that there is no consensus for deletion, and strong support for both keeping and merging. If this remains true at the end of this RfC, I suggest that following steps, starting with things that will have to be done whether it is kept or merged:

Rename to "List of notable rickrolls".
Write up a set of fairly strict inclusion criteria.
Prune out anything that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.
Add anything that isn't on the list but meets the inclusion criteria.
Post a merge proposal to Rickrolling#Notable examples.
Merge or don't merge based upon the results of that proposal.

This will allow everyone commenting on the merge proposal to see what it is that will be kept or merged, including the following key piece of information; how large the final list is. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. ansh666 16:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of that point sounds reasonable to me ... with the exceptions of points #5 & #6. Might as well skip those steps and get the consensus to do the merge during this discussion, and complete the merge after this AfD closes. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm behind that almost all the way (I'm not sure a Merge proposal would be better than a Move one). There's a pending Move request at the actual article's talk page right now, but that's assuming this survives. We could start the criteria over there. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic fails WP:SAL because the sourcing is about individual events that we've compiled together. By all means, mention two or three of the most notable ones to the main article, but I don't see a need to call it a merge. Good call, Crisco—I came across this one recently and thought to bring it here, but I was dissuaded thinking that Wikipedia pop culture/internet culture bias would make it a losing prospect. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is now an RM on the talk page, though Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD should be honored. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are moving anything over, even if it is so much as a sentence, a merge is the best outcome as it will give us time to complete the move. If a deletion decision is reached, there is a risk the entire article will be deleted before the more notable rickrolls can be carried over. Its rather pointless to re-research information we already have.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, shouldn't it be a merge/redirect for attribution purposes too? ansh666 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though. For the most part, a merge is forever. That's why I'd rather see someone just write about a few examples on the main Rickroll page than getting involved in a formal merge, which is frequently messy and misunderstood. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All we need to do is maintain this page as a redirect, which would preserve the attribution history. We already have the information on this article, so there is no need to find it yet again. Also, how are merges messy? I've carried several out myself, and they're pretty cut and dry. Just mention you merged x article into y article in the history page and add {Merged-from|List of successful rickrolls|date=April 15, 2014}} to the talk page (but with a second {).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, merging is frequently misunderstood, and attribution requirements can trip editors up. But whatever, I accept that that's probably what's going to happen here, and I should at least be glad it likely won't be kept outright. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article; no opposition to restoring the section in Rickrolling. The title is not a useful redirect, and Special:WhatLinksHere/List of successful rickrolls shows relatively few incoming links. This article was split from Rickrolling as a verbatim copy and nothing material has been added. Two unsourced items were added and removed. I second BDD's reference to WP:Merge what?: there is nothing to merge. Merging this page back will just confuse the WP:Copying within Wikipedia situation. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are proposing adding some of the content of this article to the now-empty example section in the Rickrolling article. Some of the better-sourced examples from this list can be added in. I voted merge not because I want a middle ground, but because there is legitimate information that can be merged and a valid reason to do this. There is in fact something to merge.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge – i.e., copy from List of successful rickrolls – because the full original is already present in Rickrolling's page history. Consensus on which items to retain might be reached here, but that content dispute is orthogonal to the copying issue. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I didn't check the main page's history. But, then what do we call it? Unsplit? ansh666 06:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsplit" is pretty good, if it catches on, but I prefer if participants would write out the slightly longer "delete and restore from Rickrolling's history" to avoid ambiguity. On a side note, searching for "unsplit" returned WP:Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture from 2009, where I made a similar argument. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the merge recommendations argue for keeping the List of successful rickrolls article title as a redirect or for using any of the edits in its history: they are compatible with a delete outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Flatscan: That's because a normal merge leaves behind the redirect by default, so most people don't feel the need to say "merge/redirect". See WP:Merging#How to merge. ansh666 08:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but an unwritten argument should be given little weight when answered directly. I am satisfied that you and Spirit of Eagle have annotated or amended your opinions. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Fire -- Fails the basic WP:ENC test. jps (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: There are plenty of reliable sources among them all, rickrolling is certainly notable, and perhaps a lot of these incidents are notable, but I don't see any consistent criteria for inclusion or a whole lot in common among the listees. Tezero (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2014 (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. → Call me Hahc21 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hurst (journalist)[edit]

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

Officially neutral but this is worth discussion because the creator now believes he doesn't meet notability and repeatedly is tagging for G7. I'm inclined to agree that the subject isn't notable, but think there may be a case for it and thought it warranted discussion. StarM 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is just a local news anchor. Nothing here is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I began working on the news station the subject works for..I reconsidered on notability of the individual a few years later. Feelings aren't hurt either way. I appreciate discussion being facilitated!TysonChandlerJones (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 2 April 2014 (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. → Call me Hahc21 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist technoscience[edit]

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

Article appears to be a feminist POV fork of various other articles. Talk page editors have noted serious contradictions in the article's content. Pokajanje|Talk 03:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I thought this was just a April Fools joke, but this potentially violates WP:COPYVIO and is indeed a fork. Citation Needed | Talk 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a real field of academic enquiry, as evidenced by searching various academic databases. There is an nascent acadmic journal devoted to it at http://technoscience.se/ . As to the current text of the article; all I would suggest is that editors endeavour to make more use of open access sources to allow independent verification. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content of this page does not adhere to objectivity standards. The study of technology, the history thereof, as well as the effects on singular or multiple groups falls under the two categories of History of Science and Technoscience. As such, this falls under: 5. Content forks and/or 11. Categories representing overcategorization. Chriseras (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — Chriseras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Feminism (48627 characters) and History of science (69220 characters) are both at the length in the larger end of the scale according to Wikipedia:Article_size; it seems to me an article on their intersection is not unreasonable. The Technoscience article appears to have issues of it's own. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has numerous citation and notability problems. It is about a year old and has not been significantly improved in that entire time. Short of major improvements in sources, citations, neutrality and tone it should be deleted. --Lead holder (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Stuartyeates that subject has received coverage among multiple databases. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The ideas may be bosh but there's a plain trail of works about it. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Feminist technoscience studies have existed since the 1980s. A quick search would have shown that this topic is amply covered in both academic journals and books (WP:BEFORE applies here). [24][25] There's even a journal, the International Journal of Feminist Technoscience, dedicated to the topic. Content-related concerns can be addressed through editing the article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of feminist writing about science and technology, and writers such as Wajcman and Haraway are cited across disciplines. My only concern is with the title: I have not seen the term "feminist technoscience" used much in academic literature, and I think that "Feminist views on technology" (by analogy with these articles) would be a far more appropriate title. Sandbergja (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Feminist views on technology to the disambiguation page Feminism and technology for the time being. The term "feminist technoscience" appears often in academic literature and encompasses a framework I think distinct from cyberfeminism, networked feminism, and other feminist views/interactions with technology. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; thanks for the clarification. Sandbergja (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable concept per sources brought above, passes WP:GNG. I would remind some of the commenters above that poor article quality is not a reason to delete; if an article has quality problems it has to be fixed, not deleted.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:52, 7 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism without Culture[edit]

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

Non-notable book per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find several book reviews in multiple peer-reviewed journals, which is enough to establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (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) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas E. Alahverdian[edit]

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

Multiple anon-IP removed WP:G11's. Article is too full of peacocking, puffery and self-promotion to be encyclopedic. I cannot even determine if WP:GNG is met. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject has been deleted from Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian and speedied as G4 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Alahverdian. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to G4 it, but I already placed the AfD since the CSD tags kept getting removed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At some point in the future Alahverdian's cases may rise to the level of notability, and then he may be notable, but that has not happened yet, so I don't think he is notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Morpheus (virtual reality)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Playstation 4, where it's already discussed (under the header "Companion Devices"). It can be split back out if/when it has enough coverage on its own. ansh666 02:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve per below. ansh666 20:05, 3 April 2014 (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) 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage on this is extensive, there's no shortage of sources to be supplied on this. The PS4 page is a massive 87K bytes, and doesn't need another thing expanding it further. Besides, it gets lost in the mix there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No part of WP:CRYSTAL applies here. This is not a mere product announcement. The device has already received tons of coverage and critical commentary. Even if the device never gets released, it will still warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's getting so much coverage why is there only two references in the article and why is it only two lines. that tells me that a deletion or a redirect isn't far off base. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because of a lazy article creator? What you're saying doesn't exactly show a good following through on WP:BEFORE...I can provide sources if necessary, but even the 2 already in the article are by reliable sources, and discuss it in a significant manner. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I considered it to be WP:Crystal and as a deletionist, deletion will always be my main choice and especially if it's included elsewhere we don't need a small stub. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a deletionist, and you can vote delete, but you can't claim it falls under WP:CRYSTAL without at least supporting the assertion. Not all articles on Wikipedia start out as Featured Article Candidates. Some start with just two references. Some even less. That doesn't mean they meet WP:NOT or that they aren't notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Below are some reliable sources I've found, in about a minute of searching. They are not passing mentions, but detailed, dedicated articles, some of which are even hands-on impressions. All sources are reliable and third party, and some have even been covered sources outside of the typical "video game website".

I could go on and on. The topics is so far ahead of the minimum requirements of the WP:GNG its ridiculous. I guess it just seems no one from WP:VG has taken any interest in it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, product announcements and opinion pieces. ansh666 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're very detailed announcements. Not just "Sony announces new VR project" things that span a sentence or two, or regurgitated PR announcements, but multiple paragraphs of details and specifications written by journalists themselves. And some "opinion pieces" are good, they can go towards making a "pre-release reception" section, a common path to establishing notability prior to a product's release. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 3 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rozzie Franco[edit]

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

Non-notable newscaster; the biography is sourced only to the radio station she worked for at the time, and relies on inherited notability from the cases she reported on. While no doubt devoted to her work, nobility that does not make. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art In Offices[edit]

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

Cannot find any coverage which would support a claim to notability within WP:CORP _nonsense ferret 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two links supporting claims of "nominated for H100 Hospital Club" seem to have no mention of "Art in Offices", nor the director Katie Henry, so presumably the organization did not make it to finalists. I'm not sure if "Artists and Illustrators" magazine is WP:RS, but even still, the rumored future "appearance" mentioned in the article does indicate the significance of the future coverage. A full company profile would be more notable than a blurb stating existence, but without a WP:CRYSTALBALL that is impossible to ascertain.--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (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. treating as if uncontested ProD Tawker (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indroneel Mukherjee[edit]

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

I had a look for sources and what I found is very weak - initially, it looked fine, but what there is seems to be very passing mentions, namechecks in lists, etc. At best, too soon. The most extensive mention is here - and that has nothing to do with fashion design, just that he's a party boy. However, there seems to be just enough out there that a deletion discussion seems appropriate rather than a speedy delete. Mabalu (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (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. Tawker (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupersize Me[edit]

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

This film doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTFILM - many press releases are cited, and I cannot find significant examples of independent coverage in reliable sources. _nonsense ferret 00:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned out the article and pretty much gutted it as the prior version could have been speedied as fairly blatant promotion for the film and the diet program. Most of the links were press releases or notifications of events, but I did remove some sources that could have been used as RS if they'd actually been about the film and been in-depth, but some didn't even mention the film at all. The only true claim to fame is one article from Home Magazine Gainesville and a handful of film awards. Of those awards, only one looks to be of any note- the Indie Film Festival award. The others aren't the type that could be used towards notability, especially the one from the Accolade Competition as they seem to hold 3 competitions a year and give out so many awards that it comes across like them giving an award to anyone who signs up. Offhand I think it'll end up a delete on my end but so far it doesn't look very promising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything beyond what I left on the page, other than a brief mention here. This just isn't notable enough to pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 1 April 2014 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure note - The article was restored to draft-space per a user's request; considering that the deletion consensus was no particularly overwhelming I see no issue with allowing further potential improvements to a draft and letting it go through AfC review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masthead Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Twenty one hits on Newsbank, 8 of these are from examiner.com and the remaining 13 are PR wire services. No gbooks hits except reprinted Wikipedia content, a Who's Who in Bulgarian IT entry, and a passing mention in PC Gamer. Even a straight google search seems to bring up nothing other than product announcements and Wikipedia mirrors. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (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) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems Earthrise alone was rather significant but I'd say their notability is fading. They do have a second notable MMO game and an iOS game. There doesn't seem to be much about them as a publisher other than these two games however. I guess I would equate them to a minor league baseball team. They do have a lot of passing mentions in significant gaming news sites as a result of Earthrise though. Beakermeep (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources and coverage specifically about the studio in reliable sources. Earthrise's notability is not inherited by Masthead. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 00:37, 1 April 2014 (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. With new sources, article appears to meet RS criteria Tawker (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maco (toy company)[edit]

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

No assertion or explanation of notability. Company existed, but there are no reliable sources which discuss the company in detail. There are ebay listings, and a blog, but little else. Fails WP:COMPANY due to lack of independent reliable sources speaking in detail about the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A WP:SOFTDELETE may be an appropriate outcome here if nobody else comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the products seem to be reasonably popular amongst collectors, and it's easy to find them listed in price catalogues and the like for hobbyists. But I wasn't able to find anything substantial about the company itself, so I don't think they meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A surprising statement from a deletionist like me, but they seem like an interesting part of US cultural history. I've found what looks like a reliable source, which I'm adding to the article now. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look with the hope that there was something substantial so we can close this AfD. Mbaskool.com is simply providing a brand directory, indicating that the company existed - something we already know - but doesn't speak for its notability. Indeed, it does the opposite as it says under the SWOT analysis: "Limited only to the US and has negligible presence". The directory entry is saying, "this brand is not notable but it did exist". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more references, all of which, I admit, are of dubious quality. I agree that this was a minor company, but would suggest that WP:N needs to be read in context. Most arguments around WP:N are regarding modern subjects, often ones with WP:COI issues, i.e. the owner of a small current company is trying to get his company a mention in the encyclopedia for marketing purposes. For minor companies which no longer exist, and which only existed in the days before universal internet coverage, the historical record is bound to be weaker and spottier, so a depth of coverage which would not pass muster on a current company might well be sufficient for a historical one. I've also just added two references from the NY Times. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HealthRadio[edit]

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

Looks defunct. Not notable enough per WP:WEB for inclusion. jps (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Google results find similarly-named organizations, so this doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. Pokajanje|Talk 03:13, 1 April 2014 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pirozzolo[edit]

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

I cannot find any coverage which would qualify under WP:GNG, all entirely local/routine. _nonsense ferret 00:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly promotional BLP about sports physician who has made little impact on scholarship, at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with prejudice. All signs of a paid promotional job. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff piece referenced by the subject's own publications and to press releases republished by local news sources. Not good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (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. Notability issues, Largest firm in area does not notability make Tawker (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gullands Solicitors[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable law firm per WP:CORP. Details in Infobox do not appear to be correct. Cannot find multiple examples of in-depth independent coverage. _nonsense ferret 00:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient indication of notability. Would the creator like to say if he engages in paid editing? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep'. New Wiki user here not sure if this is correct way to engage in AfD discussions. I live in Kent and Gullands are the largest legal firm in Maidstone, the page is relevant but it was low quality and had many spelling and grammar mistakes. I've improved it and will see if can develop it further with more content and references. 11:11, 1 April 2014 (GMT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMatthewWortley (talk • contribs) — BigMatthewWortley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

April Fools' nominations[edit]

	April Fools' Day 2015 >

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure). All right, we've had our fun. See you all next year! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York City[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

^{[April Fools!]}

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

Such a boring city! Epicgenius (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I ♥ NY. Kennethaw88 • talk 01:52, 2 April 2014 (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 enough. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Obvious conflict of interest. This and this are not enough. We need to go bigger! Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nolite nocere eu ipsum. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 21:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Lorem ipsum[edit]

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

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. ^{[April Fools!]} buff bills 7701 20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

custodi mihi placet. Et foetida est, nominator. Martin451 21:01, 1 April 2014 (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 tedium. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

An organisation that is obviously written by its own users and employers who obvious has a COI-problem. It also has copyvio-problem, it is not referring that is has copied everything from Wikipedia. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, COI and well every guideline on here really... --→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. April Fools jokes aren't supposed to affect article space. You put a deletion notice on the article. Please don't do that. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax[edit]

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

Blatant hoax. How obvious can you get? Dark Sun (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:43, 1 April 2014 (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 derp. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoidberg[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This article is bad and its creator should feel bad. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:13, 1 April 2014 (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 derp. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 17:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Per obvious Conflict of Interest. Northern Antarctica (₵) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI? Says who? [26] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And this is why websites have CAPTCHA. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of my COI. Dark Sun (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard of them, lots of work went into the article, and if we deleted this we would have to delete articles about lots of other species. Edison (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2014 (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 banal. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 19:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

I don't like it. So HA HA HA!!^{[April Fools!]} Epicgenius (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable singer, Salt it too! -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt in all Wikipedias except canada.wikipedia Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Canadia. Valley2city^‽ 19:18, 1 April 2014 (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 nonsensical. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 14:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Hole-in-the-Ground[edit]

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

WP:HOLE - I wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 1 April 2014 (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 derp. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

AfDs for this article:

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

If we get rid of AfD, we'll finally be able to keep up with the backlog at WP:DELREV -- RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is the best way to get a questionable article deleted. Frankly, this nomination doesn't even make sense. G S Palmer (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - is this is an April fools joke? G S Palmer (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:FOOTY, and WP:ANIMAL. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am aware of the date, but maybe not a bad idea. Sure, we'd get a lot more resumes, advertorials, and pub footballers, but would free up editors' time. (And can you really have too many pub footballers?) 3-month trial? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. If you can believe they put a man on the moon, you can believe that we should keep this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Rock is good enough. We don't need "alternative" version of it :)Ladsgroup^بحث 08:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to basalt. Moswento ^talky 09:09, 1 April 2014 (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 The result was speedy keep - even on April Fools' Day, redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. ansh666 05:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pangea[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this super-continent is long gone, why do we insist on holding on to the past? It's notability is temporary, and has no reason to be included in Wikipedia as an article. --Nicereddy (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2014 (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 Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madness[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

This is blasphemy! This is madness! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kick into a well - Madness? THIS IS SPARTAAAAAA! ansh666 05:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^{(in solitary confinement)} - I have to say, I find this rather aMuseing.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually ad a deletion tag to the article? No. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finland[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

With Finland slated to be reclaimed by Mr. Putin (source), it seems silly for it to have its own article independent of the Russia page. Delete or merge any salvageable content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to West Russia. I heard it was getting renamed. Dough 48 72 04:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I hate to shoot this AfD down, but I think that a speedy keep is justified. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-your-ground law[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

If Stevie Wonder wants it to be abolished, he is now about to get his wish. There is no duty to retreat if entering this discussion. trainfan01 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm curious, would deleting this article be considered a justifiable homicide, or not? --Nicereddy (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Management would like to apologize for the power outages experienced on your visit and offer you a free lifetime supply of O2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motel 6[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

They didn't leave the light on for me. Therefore, they're not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 1 April 2014 (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 #speedykeep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Twitter[edit]

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

This article is longer than 140 characters. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag with {{very long}} -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten to 140 characters and add hashtags! Dough 48 72 04:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually add a deletion tag to the article? No The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Vandalism[edit]

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

^{[April Fools!]}

There isn't any vandalism on this page. Notability should be established by providing reliably sourced, real-life examples of vandalism. CodeCat (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually add a deletion tag to the article? No. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Human feces[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:CONFLICT. Everybody poops. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gross! I don't need to read about this! Dough 48 72 04:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually add a deletion tag to the article? No. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Rickrolling[edit]

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

Clearly not notable. Nearly every source purporting to be on the phenomenon was actually giving blatant misinformation or, even worse, your usual self-published blog:

This source: makes no mention of the phenomenon
Unreliable
Doesn't mention the topic
Self-published
Only mentions in passing
Unreliable
Blacklisted link Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back mullets - Never gonna give 'em up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Studies suggesting retention are inconclusive and sometimes at odds with one another, but we cannot deny the article's past contributions to current medicine related articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine[edit]

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Nominating due to Jimbo's recent decree that it's all just "the work of lunatic charlatans." [27] Thus, fails WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Jinkinson talk to me 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck yeah, delete. Can we please get rid of Alternative country and Alternative algebra and Alternative wine closures while we're at it? They're all hocus pocus as far as I'm concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting an alternative - How about we delete Jimmy Wales instead, whilst leaving alternative medicine alone? We obviously can't have one with the other. Personally, I'm not too fond of the whole "Save the Wales" idea. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The result was speedy keep. Attempts to delete this page were unsuccessful. Recommend a complete system restart. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP[edit]

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

Support for this operating system is ending. Hooray!^{[April Fools!]} Eye snore (pc) 02:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How am I supposed to run my computer if XP is deleted? I haven't upgraded to Windows 8 yet! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linux. Northern Antarctica (₵) 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um where is the non-April-Fools version of this nomination? We need to start now for the discussion to close properly on the 8th. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#G3; most users are obviously searching for instructions on how to install Gentoo. Cloudchased (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wait no! Delete Windows Vista instead. → Call me Hahc21 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Windows 8 is far better. --→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as XP is too reminiscent of an annoying emoticon. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowlookwhatyou'vedone Some idiot wants to bring back Windows 2000. Geesh. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as well as every other version of Windows. We need to stimulate the economy! If people don't know it exists, they will be forced to buy a Mac instead! — Status (talk · contribs) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unneeded with the newer versions. I'm running Windows 7 right now. Dough 48 72 04:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's extremely old and support is about to end soon. 'Nuff said. Windows 7 for the win! StevenD99 ^{Contribs Sign} 04:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a separate partition to be dual-booted with BeOS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously non-notable, not enough penguins, too many paperclips Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for interrogation and (arguably inhumane) torture of suspected terrorists. Microsoft thanks you for your participation in freedom. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Hahc21, we should really discuss deleting Windows Vista. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this gets deleted, I'm taking it to DRV. Keep ILIKEIT - Purplewowies (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Format C:. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Joke AfDs may or may not be funny, but when they actually add a deletion tag to the article? No. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

That Mitchell and Webb Look[edit]

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

Bad luck, That Michell and Webb Look. You've been Wangernumbed. But Articles for Deletion, you are today's Numberwang! That's all for tonight, but until tomorrow, good Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 1 April 2014 (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. Unfunny. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the English Wikipedia[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Unnotable. Jinkinson talk to me 02:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Citation Needed | Talk 02:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WP:NOTE. And I may actually be serious on this one. Dough 48 72 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Wikipedia article on the notability article of Wikipedia does not in fact meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia, which has itself been nominated for deletion for failure to follow the notability policy of Wikipedia of which it itself is.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to suggest that it be cross-namespace redirected? To WP:N? In all seriousness, I'm actually not entirely sure the mainspace article meets the standards in the location I've proposed it redirect to. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (insert witty bon mot here) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alabama[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Jimmy Wales can only have one football team. Auburn or Alabama. We have to get rid of the other one he doesn't want.

War Eagle or Roll Tide, everybody? Citation Needed | Talk 02:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Golden Bears! Dough 48 72 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was not stated in the form of a question. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Jeopardy![edit]

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

Ooh, sorry, but we have to penalize this article because it's not in the form of a question. Unfortunately, this also means that you're in the red and won't be around to play Final Jeopardy! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is delete?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is keep but warn for future responses? There is no penalty in the initial round, only in Double Jeopardy and Daily Doubles. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: At the Battle of the Decades 2000s, Colby Burnett is going to the quarter-finalists! Eye snore (pc) 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Articles for Deletion for $400 Alex. This should solve your problem. What is Move to What is Jeopardy!?? Dough 48 72 02:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Think Song Plays... I'll take $500. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is move per the Dough? ansh666 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is love, baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more. Valley2city^‽ 05:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beg your pardon fellow Alex Trebekians... but shouldn't we be moving this to What is a game show where contestants are quizzed with general knowledge clues in the form of answers, and must phrase their responses in question form??? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. If we mine deeper, precious sources become visible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geology[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Geology and all related topics should be deleted immediately. Since the Earth is obviously fictional, articles about its internal processes are certainly fit for deletion. An Earth-specific wiki could perhaps cover this work of fiction, but Wikipedia covers real life, not such juvenile fantasies such as "Earth." While it may be fit to mention Earth due to the popularity of the "Earth" series, I see no reason that Wikipedia should carry such nonsense about small facets of fictional subjects. Editosaurus, lizard editor from outer space (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)^{[April Fools!]}[reply]

Merge to Planetary geology - I see no reason why this article is from an Earth perspective and gives too much focus on just one kind of planet. What about planets such as Mars or Jupiter? Their geology needs to be given importance too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - grammar Nazi says "geo- means 'of the Earth'". Clearly planetary geology has got to go: keep only articles like selenology and areology. :) Chris857 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "For The Advancement of Science and Arts", I'm keeping this article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn University[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Non-notable football club set up by Jimmy Wales. I'm also nominating the University of Alabama as being one of Jimmy Wales's other pretend football clubs.

Go Dawgs! Citation Needed | Talk 00:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Go Enterprise State Community College! buff bills 7701 00:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Go Nads! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Brown University. This color university doesn't need its own article. Kennethaw88 • talk 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who cares about Tide or War Eagle? Go Golden Bears! Dough 48 72 03:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. You don't have to be an "odot" to see we should keep this page. (The puns, they burn!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Department of Transportation[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

Looks like the roads don't exist either.^{[April Fools!]} Eye snore (pc) 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of this fan-fiction. This is horrible and the author should be ashamed. Citation Needed | Talk 00:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the roads are falling apart, the department obviously doesn't exist. Dough 48 72 01:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. 11K people working for an insignificant company was problematic, though I think 6K seems trivial enough. Speedy delete. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This closure has been brought to you by Taco Bell, who wants you to think outside the bun today for lunch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

Lunch[edit]

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

The meat of this article is nothing but full-out baloney. If Wikipedia is allowed to keep spam like this, soon every meal advocate group will be laying all their chips on the table trying to get their piece of the pie. This article’s all fudged up and must be deleted to preserve the good taste of the encyclopedia. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These puns are too corny, too cheesy, and way too stale. buff bills 7701 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). /me will think of a punny pun later. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Delete or merge to meal per WP:DICDEF. Only one source does more than define this. --Jakob (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How am I supposed to be able to eat in school if this article is to deleted? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I love to eat a lot during the lunch period at the cafeteria! Eye snore (pc) 01:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it is widely accepted that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", and seeing as Wikipedia is a bastion of free content, lunch seems directly contradictory to the project's core mission. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We all know the only two meals are brunch and dinner. Dough 48 72 01:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Juliancolton has already won the internet today. Northern Antarctica (₵) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too fattening. Besides, no lunch, no lunch break, and Simon Legree smiles on you all.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never heard of this before. ansh666 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to brunch (same for breakfast). No reason these should be separate. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find bacon in the article.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lunch can be fattening. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. You can't talk about Spam like that and expect this AfD to go through. Opposing on grounds of WP:FOODFIGHT. Shishkabob the WikipediaN ^{(burp • crumbs)} 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom nom nom. Kennethaw88 • talk 03:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What else am I going to do while watching The Price Is Right? — Status (talk · contribs) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt and Pepper. Seriously. I'm the first to do that? 203.100.0.82 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. "Country roads, take me home/ To the place I belong" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation[edit]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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

By looking at the roads in Pennsylvania, this department doesn't look like it exists. And because it doesn't exist...^{[April Fools!]} —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until you eliminate the roads in Connecticut that they used to give tickets on even though they were "officially closed".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonexistent, they never bother to fix the potholes on the roads that have been sitting for months and swallowing cars, along with the crumbling bridges that have been closed for years. Dough 48 72 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete something that doesn't exist. By my standards, this page has never existed in the first place. T C N7JM 00:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NOTDOT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If we delete it, we leave 11K employees working for an insignificant company. What proposeth ye regarding this? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - speaking as a Pennsylvanian, the roads suck. Go Phightins! 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dough 48 72 03:34, 1 April 2014 (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 EXTERMINATION OF THE DOCTOR. PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT. SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON THE APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION PAGE (SUCH AS THE DOCTOR'S TALK PAGE OR IN AN EXTERMINATION REVIEW). NO FURTHER EDITS SHOULD BE MADE TO THIS PAGE.

THE RESULT WAS EXTERMINATED BY THE DALEKS PER CSE A7 (NO INDICATION OF IMPORTANCE). • A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

TWELFTH DOCTOR[edit]

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

THE DOCTOR MUST BE EXTERMINATED! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)

EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
EXTERMINATE! A DALEK (TALK) 17:16, 23 NOVEMBER 2063 (UTC)
Emergency shutoff button engaged on the dalek. Who runs this bot? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daleks are not robots, but this should answer your question. 203.100.0.82 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the extremely efficient editing policy applies here, then? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:Cybermen 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Destroy him - User: The Master 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Total Destruction - User:Auton 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
dessssssssssssstroy - User:Ice Warrior 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Silence will fall - User:Silence 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
yo ho mo fo jo blo ho - User:Judoon 08:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IS PRESERVED AS AN ARCHIVE OF THE EXTERMINATION OF THE DOCTOR. PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT. SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON THE APPROPRIATE DISCUSSION PAGE (SUCH AS THE DOCTOR'S TALK PAGE OR IN AN EXTERMINATION REVIEW). NO FURTHER EDITS SHOULD BE MADE TO THIS PAGE.

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=sILVANA+Carsetti&oq=Silvana+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59l3j69i57j69i60l2.5176j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[2] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=sILVANA+Carsetti&oq=Silvana+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59l3j69i57j69i60l2.5176j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=maidana+silvana+carsetti&revid=1731189678

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=sILVANA+Carsetti&oq=Silvana+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59l3j69i57j69i60l2.5176j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=silvana+carsetti+boxeo+de+primera&start=10

[1]

[2]

[3]

Denelle Balfour[edit]

Stephen Johnston[edit]

Litarodi[edit]

Nyongo society[edit]

Classicide[edit]

James Arena-DeRosa[edit]

Wisconsin High School Powerlifting[edit]

S*M*A*S*H (TV miniseries)[edit]

KVG Scale[edit]

Star Holi Masti Gulal Ki[edit]

Perfect Couple Channel V[edit]

Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States[edit]

Zonal NePhRO scoring system[edit]

2014 Shinhwa 16th Anniversary concert-HERE[edit]

Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996)[edit]

Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

Aidan O'Keeffe[edit]

Rijome Kawahara[edit]

2011 African U-17 Championship squads[edit]

Cheryl Williams (Character)[edit]

HomerHEVC[edit]

Jack Devadee[edit]

Kenya Kawaguchi[edit]

Silvana Carsetti[edit]

Koji Oishi[edit]

Wave Modulation (WAM)[edit]

Lawton Chiles Elementary School (Gainesville, Fl)[edit]

Gaviña Gourmet Coffee[edit]

PokerTube[edit]

Asif Ali Laghari[edit]

Friendly artificial intelligence[edit]

Recommendation for Reformatting[edit]

List of successful rickrolls[edit]

Chris Hurst (journalist)[edit]

Feminist technoscience[edit]

Multiculturalism without Culture[edit]

Nicholas E. Alahverdian[edit]

Project Morpheus (virtual reality)[edit]

Rozzie Franco[edit]

Art In Offices[edit]

Indroneel Mukherjee[edit]

Unsupersize Me[edit]

Masthead Studios[edit]

Maco (toy company)[edit]

HealthRadio[edit]

Jason Pirozzolo[edit]

Gullands Solicitors[edit]

April Fools' nominations[edit]

New York City[edit]

Solar System[edit]

Lorem ipsum[edit]

Wikipedia[edit]

Hoax[edit]

Zoidberg[edit]

Human[edit]

Justin Bieber[edit]

Hole-in-the-Ground[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

Alternative rock[edit]

Pangea[edit]

Madness[edit]

Finland[edit]

Stand-your-ground law[edit]

Motel 6[edit]

Twitter[edit]

Vandalism[edit]

Human feces[edit]

Rickrolling[edit]

Alternative medicine[edit]

Windows XP[edit]

That Mitchell and Webb Look[edit]

Notability in the English Wikipedia[edit]

University of Alabama[edit]

Jeopardy![edit]

Geology[edit]

Auburn University[edit]

Ohio Department of Transportation[edit]

Lunch[edit]

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation[edit]

TWELFTH DOCTOR[edit]

SMASH (TV miniseries)[edit]