Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 12

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of number-one

Lists of number-one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTPURP. It's not even clear (in its current iteration, or in its initial version) what topic it's exactly meant to cover. List articles with "number-one" in their name? Lists of the top X for various values of X? A music-specific index of lists of number-one songs and albums? "List(s) of number-one" seems like an implausible search term (and what would that reader even be looking for?). Zero incoming links. Colin M (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• btw, the most optimistic non-deletion outcome I can think of: maybe you could move it to List of number-ones and make it a DAB page linking to Lists of number-one songs and Lists of number-one albums. But if you think that page should exist, you might as well just make it from scratch? You get nothing from dragging along the corpse of this article except a confusing edit history irrelevant to the new scope, and a couple of weird redirects. Colin M (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this does not appear to serve any useful navigational or indexing function. I don't think retitling will cure that. FWIW, in the category system, the higher level parent that includes the lists of number-one songs and albums is Category:Entertainment-related lists of superlatives. This isn't that in any event. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The collection of lists is woefully incomplete - there are hundreds of music charts - in addition number one when? Current? Past? updating the many lists would be a nightmare. WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Lightburst and Postdlf. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:LISTPURP. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nom. the title of the article is not clear Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unclear article NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. I also intend to creation protect the article. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)

• Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN criteria: although some advocacy groups have attempted to compile indiscriminate lists of everyone who has a degree and doubts global warming in any non-academic venue, these efforts aren't really taken seriously by high-quality reliable sources. More importantly: the article is congenitally WP:UNDUE because it gives an inflated impression of the amount of doubt among actual experts writing in actual academic venues. And it invites WP:SYNTH because the inclusion criteria are not based on any sensible reading of reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. Sourcing is biased and obsolete. We don't want an eighth AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC).
• Delete - In taking something nuanced and presenting it as binary, it distorts the positions of the scientists themselves, while there seem little basis for the opinions of some of those listed being the least bit noteworthy (the two biochemists being the most obvious). This is basically just a collection of 'anyone who has ever said something a climate change denier can claim supports their position', but 'everyone who doesn't entirely agree with X' is not a coherent grouping. Agricolae (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Should have been done long ago. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by its own criteria. I never bought the arguments that Wikipedians were allowed to do this because it was a list. jps (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Any utility it might ever have had is long past. Guy (help!) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Economists, chemists, zoologists, Astronaut? Who cares? There's no value in a list like this, it's just random collection of people who don't believe in climate change and happen to have a sciencey job. It will never be comprehensive, and it's dubious that it could be kept up-to-date, which is important for a list of BLPs with controversial opinions. (If we must keep it, then it should be trimmed to only include people from relevant fields, not just any rando scientist.) ApLundell (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm realizing that my comment here seems a bit flippant for such a controversal !vote, so I want to clarify that, in addition to whatever other problems it has, I was arguing that it was a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", which is basically a form of WP:SYNTH. My specific complaint is that "Scientist" is not a relevant category allowing the article to just become a coatrack. Additionally, when I wrote this comment, I thought that the list's intro addressed any concerns that it might be serving as a POVFORK, but after reading some of the comments here, I'm not sure I believe that anymore. A number of the !keep votes have argued that this list is a last bastion of WP:TRUTH that is otherwise being suppressed, and that defense is usually a sure sign of a POVFORK. ApLundell (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep this is not WP:OR or synth. The list easily passes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This is a list for research purposes. As a service to our readers it is good that we have such a list. It is not easy to find naysayers, and here we have a collection of them. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Nuances matter. When we label, we discard nuance in favour of the simplistic. For example, does a ten year old opinion especially given the views today on climate change hold any water at all; opinions change. Does a single comment really encompass an entire view. And I do think there is some OR going on when we decide on a theme and then go looking for sources to underpin that theme. Readers might just google climate deniers and see what pops up. There's lots there to begin researching the topic. I'm not convinced it's our job to make this kind of list for readers especially when it appears, to me at least, to be non-compliant and that these days there are lots of ways of researching this very current topic. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone is well known for being a climate change denier, that can be mentioned directly at their BLP or even better, handled by a category. As others have mentioned, it's also an incoherent grouping not suitable for WP:LISTN, and has WP:DUE issues inherent within trying to keep such an ambiguous listing, so that furthers the need for dealing with specific examples in prose at relevant articles if they truly are DUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:CLN, lists and categories are complementary not exclusive and so we do not delete one to favour the other. Lists are better than categories for sensitive content like this because entries can be supported by citations which verify the classification. For example, consider category:Climate change skepticism and denial. This does not contain well-established sceptics such as Freeman Dyson. Instead, it contains disputed entries like Andrew Neil. That category is appalling as a list of BLPs because it doesn't qualify, explain or verify its entries. The list is better in this respect because each entry requires a supporting citation and they have been scrutinised and debated at length. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with OP that the "group" of individuals qualifying for inclusion in this list doesn't comply with the basic idea of WP:LISTN. Further, a list of explicitly climate scientists might have been appropriate in some way at one point, but even then it would probably be useful only as a hit list for activists. Inclusion criteria are necessarily somewhat vague and subjective, and easily become outdated with implied BLP dangers. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A hit list for activists?? Nonsense. That certain people claim (or have claimed) that GW/CC should be dismissed because certain other people – allegedly "scientists" – disagree, then it is reasonable that this claim be verifiable by seeing just who is alleged to disagree. As to "implied BLP dangers" – what would those be? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is a valuable list to research dissenting voices. At least a great starting place. WP:NOTCLEANUP the list can be organized and improved. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• What serious research would begin by assembling a dossier of botanists, zoologists, and energy executives who had expressed dubious views on climate science in mostly non-academic venues? Experts would tell you that these sorts of indiscriminate lists are meaningless, and you are better off surveying the actual academic literature rather than cobbling together a list of cranks. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think all voices should be heard, and apparently 7 other AfDs had the same conclusion. You speak of organizing or discriminating based on profession. That is a content issue for the talk page, but not a reason to delete IMO. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate characterization. 3 of those previous AfDs did not come to the same conclusion, including the two most recent (they failed to come to a conclusion, which is not the same as concluding it should be kept). Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is definitely not here to make sure "all voices" are heard.

If you're asking if we "discriminate" by emphasizing climatology from actual climatologists. Then yes. Wikipedia's guidelines make it very clear that we're supposed to do that. ApLundell (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a list of climatologists. I know the list offends you because of the word you used "cranks". The list is not about you or me, it is for our readers, and this easily passes NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed. That's part of the reason it should be deleted. The title "Scientist" does not give someone any special authority with regards to climate change. I argue that it therefore fails NLIST, so far as NLIST advocates any policy at all, because it's a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization".

ApLundell (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The lists which give the article notability allow any type of scientist, not just climate scientists. Wikipedia doing otherwise would be original research. And personally I think that is one aspect of things like the Oregon Petition that was right and which is also done in Scientific consensus on climate change. Working scientists are expected to be trained and to use the scientific method and be able to give a reasoned view on scientific matters as opposed to the general public. Anyway outside of Wikipedia think what use is quoting climate scientists in support of climate science when deniers have cast them as a clique of corrupt money grubbers out to destroy economic growth? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a remarkable statement that I missed on first read through. If I understand this justification correctly, the list here is "basing its notability" on lists that are acknowledged to be problematic (e.g. Oregon Petition), but this list is being used to fix those problems by redoing that misguided work in a better manner. Is that about right? jps (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The justification is the notability of the topic as shown by reliable sources discussing the lists. We have to base the criteria on the lists but you'll see at WP:LISTN we're given a little leeway. And we're also required to give reliable sources justifying entries according to the sriteria. No that was just a digression about the non-policy based reasons for deleting given by many here, I was saying why I believe their ideas about deleting to counter denial are actually very counter productive. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You are assuming extremely problematic points such as (*) that sources such as the Oregon Petition are reliable for this purpose and (*) the groups being referred to are the same as those that are being delineated in this monstrosity. Neither of those points are ones with which I agree. jps (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep 1. "Economists, chemists, zoologists, Astronaut" Come on - read their CVs. 2. There are many articles in Wikipedia discussing issues relating to 2-3% of populations. 3. What exactly is meant by, "the scientific consensus on global warming". There is conflation - even confusion between , "Is the climate changing?" , "Why is the climate is changing?" , "Can we prevent any climate change?" and "What can we do about any changed climate?". These issues are not yet solved. All this is worthy of investigation, including the legitimate uncertainties. Simply deleting this article does not conclude these ongoing and massive issues. Eohsloohcs (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment There are no problems having Professor Mickey Mouse climbing aboard the climate alarmist bandwagon.

- however if you are a person with high credentials in this field, who casts doubt on this theology - that climate change is largely our fault, due to our reckless energy consumption which produces CO2, you will (be called a crank on this page) and get blacklisted. Eohsloohcs (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Keep. While I agree there problems with people trying to puff it up, and the inclusion criteria could be improved, yet it is a place where the generalized notion of "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" is particularized as these "scientists". And that is very useful for seeing who they are, what kind of records they have, and the generally pathetic nature of the "lots of scientists disagree" argument. As to "no value in a list like this" because these aren't "real" scientists, or their statements are out of date: well, yes, that is the nature of every such list that the deniers have prepared or alluded to – these are not serious scientists, etc. Indeed, the main reason this list has gotten as big as it is because the deniers keep wanting to add to it. As long as the denialists argue that "there are scientists who disagree" with the mainstream view a list of such scientists is notable, and we should retain it. It is not UNDUE for giving an inflated view of how much doubt there is, it is entirely WP:DUE in showing how thin and weak is this alleged doubt.

The article should improved, but not deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

So the value of this list is that it's an intentionally lousy list to shame the crackpots? ApLundell (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There are other articles that make mention of who exactly holds such opinions (or has in the past). E.g. Oregon Petition. Rather than Wikipedia keeping its own mish-mash fight of who is a) or b), let's report on how others decide how to make these sorts of misguided lists. jps (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That petition is the mish-mash but it is part of the basis for notability of the topic.

As to 'value'. I think the list has value - but is not Wikipedia's job to consider the value of topics, only their notability. On the same basis what is the value of the Oregon Petition? Or hundreds of Pokemon games? Notability is the basis for inclusion. Value to society should not be considered - that way lies censorship.Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, this is NOT an "intentionally lousy list", it is a particularization of the hand-wavy claim that "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" with the mainstream assessment. It provides a basis for our readers to see if there is any substance to this claim. If anyone ("crackpot" or not) feels shame for pushing this crappy claim, or for disagreeing against a tidal wave of evidence, hey, that's their choice.

The "Oregon Petition" does not support the claim that "LOTS of scientists disagree"; I am not aware of any other article that does. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It is intentionally lousy as it intentionally and without apology abrogates an alphabet soup worth of WP:PAGs as documented on this page. I understand that you like the list as an object lesson, but that is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be for (see WP:OR). No article on Wikipedia should support the claim that "LOTS" of scientists disagree. I'm not sure why you invoked that straw man. jps (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Where's List of scientists who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? It's ~50 times the size of this article and pretty infeasible to manage; this having an article just for being a smaller topic is UNDUE. The differences between each person's positions at various times – one citation is from 1967 for some reason! – should not be reduced to a list of names without specifying details of "questioning the accuracy" and is not covered as a list in RSes. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep It is a notable topic. That the sources that made it notable are stupid and not put into science magazines is not relevant. It passes the criteria for a list on Wikipedia. That it includes mostly scientists who have nothing to do with climate science is what the sources for notability do. Deleting it simply sends people to rubbish lists like the Oregon Petition, it does not help with the education aim of Wikipedia. This is about as good a list as one can get and is a basis for rational thought. I really wish Wikipedia editors would give up the idea of deleting anything which they don't like. Anything notable is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover and we should do so or Wikipedia will lose its reputation for neutral pint of view. We are not here to bowdlerize for the idiot public and convince them of the rightness of our ideas. We are simply here to present what is notable in as plain straightforward and factual a way as we can. Dmcq (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Oregon Petition a rubbish list but this list is not a rubbish list? jps (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Because it was self selected and not properly checked. We have an article about it Oregon petition, see what Scientific American found out in its little check in 2001. They checked 30 of the PhDs in climate science, only one was actually doing anything related and two thirds of them even in 2001 would retract their signature if they could. And in 2001 I would have still considered it reasonable for some people to be skeptical to about the extent of the effects. How is it good to put up something like that on Wikipedia and remove properly cited details and which can have entries removed if they change their minds? The reason it is on Wikipedia is because the topic is notable. Neither article should be deleted. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the rubbishness you've described with respect to the Oregon Petition is the same rubbishness from which our list suffers save one: the people we include are done so on anonymous users' original research to determine (a) the person is a "scientist" and (b) the person disagrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. At least with the Oregon Petition, it isn't our fault that it is rubbish. jps (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you have a funny idea of what WP:OR is about. By your reasoning every single article in Wikipedia would be deleted because an editor chose what to write down. There is no particular research needed to find the people in the list - they become obvious and are listed as a characteristic in categories when writing about the scientists. They don't hide it or have to have something ferreted out, they proclaim what they say. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles that comply with WP:LISTN can avoid WP:OR by pointing to reliable sources that support the existence of a discrete "group" and that define the inclusion/exclusion criteria for that group. This article doesn't have that kind of support because the only sources that try to assemble these sorts of list are fringe advocacy organizations. I'm sure I could compile a list of Italian sex criminals, Serial killers who were registered Democrats, or Pilots who think we faked the moon landing, but those sorts of groupings would be meaningless and would really only serve to push a POV. Nblund ^talk 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Produce reliable sources that talk about those lists you made up and that would be good evidence of their notability according to WP:LISTN. Just look at the sentence itemising the lists and you'll see reliable sources discussing them. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Those lists" - that is exactly the problem. The lists reliable sources talk about are different from the list we have.

• Some crackpot compiles a list of "X that did Y", in order to "prove" that there is a connection between X and Y.
• Reliable sources talk about that list, pointing out that they do not prove what they claim to.
• Wikipedia editors compile another list of "X that did Y". This list contains different Xes, and it is a different list. If you believe in Platonic ideals, they both exemplify the same real thing, so somehow, one could argue that the reliable sources talk about the list the Wikipedian made. But in reality, they do not. The original crackpot and the Wikipedians have different criteria, and they have partly different goals. Therefore the sources that talk about the crackpot's list are not talking about the Wikipedia list, and they do not justify its existence.

This type of list is qualitatively different from List of mountains on Io, List of the kings of Epirus, List of intergovernmental organizations or even List of monuments damaged by conflict in the Middle East during the 21st century, because criteria for those lists have straightforward definitions. The people who work on those lists do not have to discuss "what exactly is a mountain", or "does this guy count as a king?" - professionals already decided that for them. But there are no professionals who define who belongs on a list like this.

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, which someone mentioned below, is also pretty clear.

List of popes is based on sources which already (arbitrarily) decided who counts as a pope, as opposed to an antipope. No Wikipedians need to invent their own criteria, as they did for the scientists-who-disagree list. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt: There is so much wrong with this list that I'm unsure where to begin. I'll start by agreeing with the sound objections above. If someone is prominent in this area they should be mentioned or quoted at Climate change denial and/or it should be discussed within their BLP. There's no NPOV way to maintain such a list. The phrase "who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus" is so vague that it could even include a scientist who thinks climate change will be worse than the consensus view. --mikeu ^talk 00:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot has been said in the short time since I commented above. I've reviewed the points discussed below and find support for this list unpersuasive. The criteria for inclusion has not been significantly improved since the last discussion ~5 years ago. The shortcomings of this list are blatant and unaddressed. On the off-chance that someone is willing to put in a great deal of effort to start a new list with much stricter criteria I would also be ok with a fresh start in draft space. --mikeu ^talk 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep They have their own articles. This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type. I clicked a name at random David Legates and it has a lot about his climate opinions in the article for him. Are all of these scientists mostly known for their stance on climate? Do they at least get coverage for their stance on climate? Dream Focus 02:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And that is the problem with this list - it is not a lists of "scientists of this type", it is a mishmash of all different types of scientists, with contradictory opinions, conflicting statements and differning expertise (from a lot to none whatsoever). Many of these 'scientists' are not 'mostly known for their stance on climate change' - for example, the list includes a biochemist and general curmudgeon who the last time he shot his mouth off became a poster-boy for the HIV/AIDS denialists. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Intrinsically vague and SYNTH-etic. Fails WP:LISTN for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. We do nothing good by heaping together people who have no relevant expertise and said a thing one time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, salt. It's perhaps a bit of an unusual case for salting, but the preventive action would still be appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't tell whether this is a shrine to denialism, a wall of shame, or just a pile of WP:SYN, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to be originating this sort of compilation. It appears that most or all of the sources are either on the general topic of denialism or on one specific person, not catalogs from which we can draw. And "people quoted for stuff they don't have expertise on" raises BLP issues as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Unencyclopedic shopping list that causes grave BLP issues by lumping people together in (effectively) a club of fools, based very often on cherry picked things they have said many years ago. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC); amended 16:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. This is like the lists peddled by creationists which contain scientists who supposedly oppose the theory of evolution. Its main purpose is giving a wrong impression on laymen who do not understand that there is more than one science, that scientists are typically specialists for one tiny part of the whole of science and laymen for all the rest, that argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy, and that a few hundred scientists are a minuscule minority. We have a Category:Climate change skepticism and denial and, as mentioned above, articles such as Oregon Petition, which is enough for finding such people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you (and Alexbrn) have not read the previous comments, and/or don't understand the difference between 1) making a claim (that "LOTS of scientists disagree ..."), and 2) presenting the evidence that (allegedly!) supports the claim. Also, the Oregon Petition, with its 30,000+ signatories, is not "enough for finding" alleged scientists that disagree (distinct from those who claim some kind of association with science). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I did read them. I just see no reason why we should "present the evidence". Wikipedia editors wrote this list. They decided it is a subject worth writing about. They decided what the criteria are for inclusion in it. They decided how to subcategorize it, with detailed descriptions of what people in the categories believe and what they do not believe. They could, with the same justification, have written another list, on another, slightly different subject, with other inclusion criteria and other subcategories. Now please go compare that to WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors wrote this list [etc.]": of course, who else writes any list/article on WP? And all those functions you cite are routine editorial functions, applicable to all lists. You seem to think that WP editors shouldn't assemble any kind of list ("original work") beyond copying the list from a source (which then runs into copyvio problems). This is an incorrect view of WP:OR. WP:OR prohibits "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" – where do you see that? WP:OR prohibits any material that is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". Can you point to (or better yet, tag) any such material here?

For all the "OR-waving" going on here I have yet to see anyone point to specific instances of WP:OR. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been an argument that assembling a list is routine and not original. I don't buy it. What is "new analysis" is the connection between (a) credentials of a scientist and (b) denial of a particular conceptualization of the scientific consensus on global warming. This requires leaps of interpretation to do and is best left to the production by competent experts who can have their assemblage vetted by third parties. What we should not be doing here at Wikipedia is inventing such lists. That's where WP:OR comes in. Not every list that can be made deserves a Wikipedia page. We should be stubbornly and outrageously conservative when it comes to such work. It's straightforward to list the countries of the world. It is not straightforward to cobble this particular list together. This is why I recommended elsewhere that you take on this activity in another venue. Oh, and what you seem to be overlooking is the important WP:SYNTH part of WP:OR. I would turn your question around. What source do we have which indicates that anyone else has ever assembled a list like this anywhere? jps (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

How about this source: Heartland's 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

See also McCright and Dunlap 2000 ("Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem", available here), who review a number of "lists of skeptics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Heartland's list? Really? That's the reliable source you think we are basing our list on? I think you must be joking here. Crucially, McCright and Dunlap do not argue in favor the criteria we specify for lists. jps (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tentative delete - Tentative, because I do see some merit in the list but I share the concern that people will be added to this list based on weak evidence (e.g. statements they ma have made years or decades ago). If we do keep this article, it will have to be rigorously patrolled and the WP:RS policy will need to be scrutinized to ensure that the sourcing is timely and that the statements being attributed are not later contradicted by later statements by the same person. A better approach IMHO would be to specifically single out scientists who have gone on record as disagreeing with AGW consensus. Omanlured (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• History The nominator advertised this nomination elsewhere, saying "I couldn't find any past AfDs on this..." This was puzzling as the topic has an extensive history at AfD. Looking into this, I reckon that the use of the {{article history}} template is the problem, as this obfuscates the article's history by showing none of it and, instead, just shows a brief comment that is easy to miss. So, we should note that the page in question has not just been at AfD 8 times before, it has also been at DRV 4 times too. And, of course, the page is still here. Since the page was created in 2005, over 14 years ago, it has been edited over 4000 times by over 700 editors. Last year, it was read over 100,000 times and so, over the years, it must have had over a million readers. And that's not counting all the mirrors and translations.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana, The Life of Reason

Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Advertising AfDs (neutrally) on relevant noticeboards is a good thing. The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn is the 5th most active poster on that noticeboard. ජපස (jps) is the most active. Notice how they both rush here so quickly. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's called a "watchlist". (We also have a special alerting service[1] - recommended!) Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson seems to be implying that something improper has happened here, I'd like him to spell his accusation out clearly, please. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What kind of thing are you referring to by 'things have moved on'? Things like we have the unsocial media nowadays and universities stop people talking whose views offend a lot of students? Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, NPOV and sourcing standards are taken more seriously. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Give an example where you think that is in the least relevant to this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and WP:PAG-savvy editor than I was in 2013! Remember the concept of WP:CCC is enshrined in policy. The impending deletion of this daft article is further evidence of this "C" change. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds to me to be pretty much exactly what I was saying but you denied. Content by consensus rather than notability. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I "denied" nothing. The mighty tide of consensus (i.e. general agreement based on the WP:PAGs) is the fundamental basis for the working of Wikipedia. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on the other hand, is a bad thing – and apparently what has led to the persistence of this article. With fresh outside eyes on it we can clean this mess up to the advantage of our Project. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either. This is a wiki, after all. jps (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, the closing admin's comment in 2013 concluded by saying that the no-consensus result does not preclude future deletion nominations if the serious concerns about the structure and content of this article, including some of those mentioned above, are not addressed to the satisfaction of most editors. The tenor of the policy-informed opinions in the annual discussions about deleting this list seems to trend towards deletion, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to keep the article to seriously engage with, rather than to simply dismiss, these concerns. I would argue that, six years later, these concerns about structure and content have not been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in Fringe Theories Noticeboard, and as usual with FTN no notice was given here but the usual crowd piled in :-( Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: User:Dmcq seems to not like the fact that we try to keep WP:FRINGE enforced at this encyclopedia. Poor baby probably should be topic banned. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs)

ජපස . . . whatever your name is, an uncalled for cheap shot in my opinion. You should bother to look at the recent talk page under "editorializing." DMCQ and I had a long back and forth about statements the I believed unduly bolstered the position of those advocating climate change. His rationale for keeping the statements was that the counter point of view was fringe and should not be given undue weight. Now, I disagree with the conclusion that the opinions of the 80 scientists on the list are fringe (in fact, usually I find that its the theories that warn that the earth is coming to an end that are the ones properly characterized as "fringe.") Nevertheless, I respect his logic for enforcing the fringe rules, even if I disagree with his conclusion. Kolg8 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I rarely agree with Kolg8, but in this I fully concur: that was an uncalled for cheap shot. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not a cheap shot to insinuate bad behavior when usual crowd piled in :-(, eh keepers? Clutching your pearls over my rejoinder seems cheaply opposed to the rationale of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio at least. I don't think DMCQ is worse for the wear. jps (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed any such insinuation. But perhaps I lack your refined sensibilities. And if on that account you're worse for wear perhaps you shouldn't be in the pool. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The nominator and subsequent arguments above have pretty much summed up the many issues with this list, including WP:SYNTH, the vague nature of the inclusion criteria, and the fact that the topic is far to nuanced to be able to create any sort of split between "agrees' and "disagrees". The number of prior AFDs on this list are completely irrelevant to the current discussion, as the last one was close to six years ago, and resulted in No Consensus. That is more than enough time to be allowed to revisit the discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per above. BLP issues mainly, and encyclopedias just generally don't have lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus on any topic. Their opinion belongs in the respective articles on the controversial subject (with caveats), but a blanket list is OR and not a good idea. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 17:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and per the other points made above. Cranks are well-known to maintain such lists of authoritative-sounding people to bolster their own legitimacy, and this list is just another in this genre. Long past time to kill it. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment That's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Trayvon Martin because it could be used by those with a racist agenda. Lists like these cut both ways; it's kinda like how list of female scientists in the 20th century cuts both ways because if people are reading it and thinking, "Hmm, I only recognize one or two people out of this list," it calls into question whether the group in question really includes a lot of top-tier talent in the field; and if not, well, people can draw their own conclusions. The information itself is unbiased. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think what you're missing here is that the list suffers from WP:PROFRINGE. There is a "KEEP!KEEP!KEEP!" !vote below that may indicate that. In that way, this situation is different from the ones you are comparing it to. jps (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The deniers (cranks or otherwise) often claim there are "LOTS of scientists who disagree", but rarely show the details. We present this list not to support the claim, but to show how deficient those details are. To borrow an earlier comment: this is not so much a lousy list, as it is a list showing how lousy is this claim of "LOTs of scientists...." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it's because of where you're hanging out, or what, but as much as I appreciate your aim of hoping to show people how deficient certain details are in faulty arguments, Wikipedia is WP:NOT meant to be used for that purpose. Such work is entirely original research of the synthetic kind. It has always been as such and I have yet to see any argument for why this is not the case. I would heartily endorse you keeping such a list at your own private website. If it became notable enough, maybe we could write a Wikipedia article on it. But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a list. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:AFD (the list can be improved to address the above concerns) and WP:CLN: almost all of these scientists are listed in Category:Climate change skepticism and denial and a list is actually superior to the categorization since sourcing requirements can be more easily enforced. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt The list is synthesis to mislead the reader into thinking there is significant doubt about the reality of global warming. For an example of the FUD, consider what our articles claim for two entries: Garth Paltridge "believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat"; Harrison Schmitt thinks "climate change is a tool for people who are trying to increase the size of government". An article on the topic should discuss WP:DUE views, but this list is original research reflecting nothing more than it is always possible to find a hundred doubters in a planet of seven billion people. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? "Any utility it ever had is long past?" It's a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion. 1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! Stop throwing up buzz words like "denialist" and "consensus" which provide you with an unjustified view from your perceived moral high ground. Pick a person or persons you don't think should be included, actually apply the four criteria and make an argument that they do or do not belong on the list! As for me, I've been an editor of this page for a little over a year. By my count, I've successfully added seven scientists to the list (I'll soon be recommending an 8th). . . and I've shown my work every time, and those seven met the criteria. And as to relevance . . . the last IPCC report, IPCC 5, seems to have cut its projected warming over the next two decades in half (see IPCC 5 Figure 11.25). And actual observed warming is in the bottom 2.5 percent of the IPCC 3 models' range. My god, this page is more relevant than ever.Kolg8 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Kolg8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! That says it all, doesn't it? Wikipedia is meant to be intellectually lazy. jps (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Kolg8 has inadvertently helpfully demonstrated that this article is indeed being used to serve an agenda. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree Kolg8 read the many comments made by the delete !voters and (summarizing the comments) came to the conclusion that many want this deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or I do not agree with it. There are now 9 attempts to scrub these contrary opinions which Kolg8 has pointed out, meet WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• I also agree with Kolg8 and Lightburst on this. The topic is notable and the article has been well cited. I am against Wikipedia becoming a social bubble. Reliability is a core aim in the very first line of WP:POLICY. The Fringe Theory noticeboard people harm the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopaedia when they delete notable I don't like stuff rather than just ensuring it is written and cited it in a neutral fashion. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Note : Kolg8 is a bit of an WP:SPA. 90% of their edits are edits to or comments about this list. (All but one of the remainder are to Peter Ridd, who is a candidate for the list.) ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ApLundell, what you say is true. 90% of my edits are to this article. Now . . . any chance you want to address the points I made above? For the record, questioning someone's motives while ignoring their argument is another example of intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your cherry-picking of IPCC esoterica is irrelevant to the question of whether this article should exist or not. Finding scientists, many of them in fields that are not climate science, who meet an arbitrary criterion is WP:SYNTH. jps correctly identified a problem with your argument that has nothing to do with your editing record. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of arbitrary criteria, why does this page use IPCC3 as the sole representation of scientific consensus on climate change, such that disagreement with it is the criterion for inclusion on this page, rather than IPCC4 or IPCC5? Kolg8 says that the differences of IPCC5 with IPCC3 show this page is more relevant than ever. I say that the fact that there is an IPCC5 report means that maintaining a listing of those deemed to have once disagreed with IPCC3 is of less relevance than it ever was. At a minimum, shouldn't it be "List of scientists who disagreed with the 2001 scientific consensus on global warming"? Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, yes, that too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That is precisely one of the complaints I have about this list: statements of denial (or merely points of criticism) are strongly time-dependent (AR-dependent) as the evidence for GW/CC matured, so they really should be dated. But that is about improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

After the last rounds of no consensus for deletion, I tried for years (go ahead, sift through the archives) in good faith to try to fix the problems with this list to no avail. I have come to the conclusion it is unfixable. The design of the list is intentionally to abrogate many of the most straightforward rules of this website. jps (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The !votes above to "salt" are concerning because WP:SALT is intended for articles that have been deleted and then repeatedly recreated. In this case the opposite is true so far as I can see – the article has never been deleted but has been repeatedly kept, either through consensus or lack of it. Those here !voting "salt" may unintentionally have given the impression they have not given thought to protection policy. Thincat (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  WP:SALT is not "intended" for that, but of course is useful for that. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I think the "salty" votes may be doing something like asking for a moratorium on recreation out of fear that we have to keep revisiting this question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs)

  Salting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (2nd nomination) might be an alternative approach! Thincat (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  WP:SALT actually says This is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. It's useful for that, but not limited to that. I'd say it could be used here for an article that, if deleted, is at high risk of re-creation. But regardless, even if this were not the correct use of SALT, the delete vote portion and their reasoning is still valid. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• High risk for exposing readers to a view you disagree with? That is silly and not the purpose of salt. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• But is there any real reason to think it's at high risk of re-creation? People keep bringing up the 7 previous AFDs, but it's not like it was deleted and then recreated several times. We've never achieved consensus to delete. Actually it was only the 6th and 7th where there was no consensus, prior to that it was keep. (It seems from the 4th nomination to the last, we've been at no consensus, prior to that it was keep.) If anything, the 7 previous AfDs just proves there's a lot of attention and so any attempt at recreation will quickly fail unless it goes through deletion review. Further, as the previous AfDs show, this is now the 3rd title. Frankly you could easily come up with many more. So it's questionable if salt will actually significantly harm attempts at recreation. IMO the counter argument that the previous AfDs demonstrate that we need to stop AfDing this article is more reasonable. Although since the previous 2 4 were no consensus after a bunch few of keeps and it has also been a long while now, it's IMO a reasonable AfD and it's quite likely the consensus will be respected. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - Even ten years ago it was clear to me and others that this article had become a badly written nexus of non-notable fringe theories and advocacy for religious points of view. Ten years on, a dozen scientists formerly denying climate change have died. Outside of another dozen die-hards in the United States, virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world. As a scientific community, we also have much more information and data, and the consensus has gotten stronger (close to 99.9 % of scientists agree) as the obituary pages continue to publish the memorials to those who disagree with scientific consensus. Everyone has moved on with their lives. In the meanwhile, I've earned a master's of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don't believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but absolutely nobody -- not teachers, not students, not scholars -- seriously denies climate change any more. A list that purports to list the dozen or so people who still deny it to their grave is shrinking each day, and is an example of fraudulently spreading doubt and uncertainty, as noted by Johnuniq. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, ether, and astronomy. Sure there are a handful of believers in this, Area 51, cold fusion, Occultism in Nazism, AIDS denialism, and the Age of Aquarius, but it's so few that to list them in an article is to give extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop - a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called "fringe theories advanced for religious purposes," shall we?

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;

Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;

Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);

Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;

Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;

Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;

Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

I mean, all you needed to do was click on the article and skim through it. But instead, you push the narrative that they're all quacks. By the way, if you feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand, how many Nobel Prizes have you won? Kolg8 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the list spreads FUD with the UNDUE idea that it is a big deal that there are a small number of reputable scientists who have expressed doubts about global warming. What reliable secondary source says that the views of some contrarians exposes significant doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change? Articles should not mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize — I think you mean Ivar Giaever, who won the physics prize, and who is dead, and when he was alive was trivially wrong. (And I may or may not have a Nobel Prize in my back pocket, but Brian Schmidt certainly does. What does he have to say on the subject? Gee, I wonder.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies to Dr. Giaever, first for misspelling his name, and second for stating that he won the Nobel Peace Price when it was actually the Nobel Prize for Physics (which is more relevant to the issues at hand, it would seem). For what it's worth, you may owe him a bigger apology. According to the wikipedia page you cite, he's not dead yet. Kolg8 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, Johnuniq, after I cited 9 exceptional scientists, you concede their status but argue that the article improperly infers "significant doubt[s]" due to the opinions of only a few reputable scientists. You shouldn't forget that one of the requirements for inclusion in the list is that the scientist has their own wikipedia page to establish notability. There are many reputable scientists that do not have a wikipedia page. To illustrate, I went to MIT's website, to the page on the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (Lindzen's department). I searched for the first 10 (alphabetically) on google, and could only find a wikipedia page for 3. Would we say those only those three are "reputable?" No, if your professor at MIT, you're a scientific rock star, wikipedia page or no wikipedia page. Kolg8 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete (came here from ARS) This is a clear NPOV nightmare, since the only places outside of Wikipedia that such "lists of scientists" are maintained is advocacy groups pushing an anti-science agenda. I note that Wikipedia includes an article on the loosely-related Project Steve (for "scientists named Steve" who agree with the scientific consensus on evolution, which is not entirely unrelated to this topic), but we don't actually quote the list on that article. Since I see this popping up from time to time, I should also point out in anticipation of someone mentioning it that the fact of this being the 7th nomination is fairly immaterial, since the most recent nomination was almost six years ago and the last "keep" consensus was over eight years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This list is notable and well-sourced. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt I can see no conceivable reason why such a list should exist. We don't need to have lists of people who agree or disagree with every particular controversial thing. This feels very WP:POINT-y as an article, and I'm flummoxed as to how it survived through this many prior AFDs. Delete it, kill it with fire, and burn the ashes again for good measure. --Jayron32 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per WP:LISTN and WP:PROFRINGE; the only possible justification for WP:LISTN (ie. that some fringe advocacy groups use such lists to advance their position) violates WP:PROFRINGE, since those lists aren't treated seriously by any mainstream source. The sourcing is terrible and suffers from WP:BIASED issues, which is a problem in a list because their criteria has to be clear and uncontroversial. More generally, we don't have comparable nose-counting lists on other scientific theories, so it's hard to see what the purpose of this list would be except to promote a WP:FRINGE position. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep (saw at ARS) One can find lists like this in non-partisan and non-biased sources. Example. We can present the nuances of what the scientists actually believe (it's not so black and white as "I believe/Don't believe" there are gradients) would not be possible in a category. Possibly the list could be reworked into prose form with more details and sections like in the "Example" link. -- GreenC 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This list linked here appears to be a copy of this Wikipedia page. The author didn't even bother to change the citation links. Nblund ^talk 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and the fact this cranky blog has got editors here thinkings it is a "non-partisan and non-biased source" is probably further reason why this article should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. But, a list of deniers and some sort of categorization of their positions is within what Wikipedia already does. We have an article describing denier positions, and articles about deniers that describe their positions, putting the two together is not odious. If anything it is an opportunity since notable Fringe topics require a non-Fringe perspective. -- GreenC 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

putting the two together is not odious -- but it is WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review for a rigourous discussion of the complications and problems in defining and applying labels to opionions. "Despite recognizing that categories are a ‘fundamental device by which all members of any society constitute their social order’,¹¹⁵ we suggest that each attempt to label climate opinions produced thus far has been unable to accurately portray the complexity that exists, resulting in a mixture of labels which are used interchangeably and confusingly in academia, policy,the media, and across other networks." This list suffers from many of the criticisms described there. --mikeu ^talk 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenC and I have disagreed a lot in the last two years, but (thanks in part to my having seen him engage in serious critical analysis of sources back in 2012) I never questioned his competence as an editor until I saw the above claim that electroverse.net is a "non-partisan and non-biased source". Not only is the page itself clearly partisan in its rhetoric, but the whole point of the website is pushing the view that climate is actually getting colder, not warmer -- just skim all their titles going back to July like I just did to see what I mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. is actually what I said. Apparantly you, too, can make a mistake. -- GreenC 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a long history of making mistakes, admitting to them, and either moving on or actually doing the heavy lifting to clean up whatever damage may have been caused, most recently four days ago. It is only editors trying to push an agenda who insist that I am never willing to admit that I am wrong. (I recall back in 2015 a number of editors repeatedly insisted that I had been proven wrong on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa and related discussions but that I refused to admit it because I have some psychopathic obsession with my own intellectual perfection and never making a single mistake.) That being said, I don't think it's a mistake in this case to read your initial, still-unstricken !vote, which was based on there supposedly being in existence impartial sources that agree with Wikipedia's article on this point, which still now is reliant on the blog in question, and not to reinterpret it in light of something you said you should have done later. You wrote the above well over two days ago, and still have neither carried out said striking of the source (and perhaps replacing it with I haven't been able to find any such sources, but I assume they are out there??) nor stricken your !vote itself which was based on the said source. I can understand that you have now changed your position to the (IMO weaker) one that since we have articles on climate change deniers it is maybe within our scope to have a list of them, but it still clouds the discussion to do so as you have done; if it were me (and if you really want an example I'll dig one up for you, but elsewhere, on my own time) I would strike all but the word "keep" and add "See revised rationale below." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Trim: At a minimum, this list should be limited exclusively to climate scientists, or those who have make a significant contribution to the field of climate science. Otherwise it's just an opinion poll among scientists from assorted fields who don't necessarily possess any expertise on the climate. For example, you don't typically query biologists about their opinion on theories of cosmic inflation because it's not in their field. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but there was one well-known instance of the converse, where an astronomer was regularly quoted for his contrarian opinion on the authenticity of an early bird(ish) fossil, particularly by the Answers in Genesis crowd. But then that is exactly the point, isn't it? It is all rather POINTy (and pointless) to collect the opinions of those with no expertise. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep With apologies to people who have been conned into believing that the WP climate area is sound ... Who are we kidding here? This is an important, long standing article that gives a tiny sliver of balance to grotesquely POV, essentially permanently vandalized, articles on Climate -- too many to list, but this gives an idea of the breathtaking scope: Was Four Legs good, Two legs bad -- Consensus is a suspect argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_consensus&diff=2119801&oldid=2113861), changed to Four Legs good, Two legs better -- Consensus is something of a gold standard and the Catastrophic Climate Change narrative stands on a par with "the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science." [Montague apropos of Evolution] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus). The first person making that flip was described as "The Climate Doctor" in Canada's National Post [copy here: https://www.thegwpf.com/lawrence-solomon-wikipedias-climate-doctor/] There is relentless pressure on anything that could conceivably touch on the CAGW narrative to make the picture conform to the strong opinions of people wedded body and soul to the quasi-religious CAGW narrative. Maybe people voting to delete are 'deletionists' and are honestly trying to improve things, but deleting this particular article would be wrong on its face and akin to vandalism. It does not matter how many or what percentage of people are willing to do something wrong. It does not make it right. Consensus on deletion should not be able to override the extreme value of this article. AFAIK, it is the only page on Wikipedia out of the thousands of pages touching on climate that brings some tiny bit of balance to the Catastrophic Climate Narrative and its accompanying mean spirited culture of name-calling, reputation smearing, and censoring anybody who dares to speak against the Religious Catastrophic Climate Change Orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You probably didn't intend it this way, but what you are arguing for, 'there has to be a page that gives a different viewpoint than all of the other pages on the topic', is pretty much the exact description of a POV WP:CONTENTFORK, and "[a]ll POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia,. . . ." Nonetheless, this list isn't up for deletion because of the topic, per se. It is unencyclopedic because it is taking a diverse group of scientists with a range of expertise and a plethora of individual positions and lumping them into arbitrary and artificial editor-defined categories that do not do justice to their nuanced views, and is failing to take the dynamic nature of scientific conclusions into account by using dated quotes and comparing them to a document written almost 20 years ago under the guise of reflecting the current scientific consensus. 'Fix the page, don't delete it' some would say, but it is virtually impossible to present the material this diverse in a manner that is not inherently arbitrary, misleading and pointy. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • First, what is a "dynamic nature of scientific conclusion?" Don't get me wrong: those are excellent buzz words. But "dynamic" is defined as "characterized by constant change, activity or progress." Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. We figured out some time ago that the speed of acceleration due to gravity near the earth's surface is 9.8 m/s. We can design a test, and if properly performed, we will again confirm that rate of acceleration, and objects will continue to accelerate a 9.8 m/s in the future. It will not change no matter how much you want it to, and no matter how large the consensus is that the real rate is 7 m/s. And that's why it is useful for this article to pin down exactly what is meant by "Climate Change," f/k/a "Global Warming," by citing the three main tenants of IPCC 3. That study's conclusions, specifically that the earth may warm by as much as 5.8 degrees celsius over the next century, are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping).
    • Second, these continued red herrings, that a webpage providing a different viewpoint violates a wikipedia policy on neutrality, just need to stop. It's silly. There is a wikipedia page on the Republican Party. There is one on the Democratic Party. Because Republicans and Democrats each have viewpoints, does that mean the pages can't exist? Obviously not. The policy on neutrality means that editors of the page cannot add statements like "Republican policies are designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor," and "Democrats have a history of creating expensive social programs that are ineffective and put a strain on the economy."Kolg8 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. One of the core aspects of the scientific method is that all conclusions are provisional, subject to reevaluation as new data come to light. Such novel findings often provide no change of thought, but can result in everything from minor tweaks to Saul-to-Paul shifts in perspective. That is exactly why comparing a one-time statement from 15 years ago to a 20-year old document that has been rendered obsolete by two subsequent such documents provides little value. It is comparing what a scientist once thought to what used to be the consensus.

WP:CONTENTFORK and its statements on POV are policy, not a red herring. If there are multiple noteworthy viewpoints they are to be represented across the articles on a subject, not in a ghetto or walled garden, nor do we collect lists of people who themselves have a range of different views as a catchall for the one thing they have in common, that they have said something critical of a 20-year-old report we don't like, because we personally feel the data . . . are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping). One's personal predilections about global climate policy are not really relevant to whether this page conforms with Wikipedia policy on lists. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason to support science deniers, but whether it supports your views or not or makes you happy or sad is not a reason for keeping or deleting. The notability criteria are cited and it follows the policies and provides reliable information to people visiting Wikipedia and that's quite enough for my keep !vote without all the waffle and digression. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Agricolate, I would be delighted if the scientific method could somehow work its way into the Climate Change debate. From my point of view, a theory based on proxy data and unproven assumptions to make temperature projections that can't be tested for 110 years is in desperate need of the scientific method. But for the record, there's another word for a "provisional conclusion." It's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis isn't a fact, even if there is a supposed consensus believing in it, unless and until it is proven. Kolg8 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

All conclusions in science are provisional in this manner, and nothing can be proven to the point that it is not subject to future revision. Thus, as you define it, there are no facts. Well done. Again, how does this expedition into the philosophy of reality bear on Wikipedia's policies regarding lists? It seems like your rationale is more a demand for a WP:SOAPBOX than an argument for the soundness of this particular list. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Total nonsense. But more to the point, this discussion is NOT about any theories, hypotheses, or unequivocal truths, it is about whether this list should be kept, or deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep A big thank you to each and every scientist who has stood up against the chicken-little climate alarmist rubbish. The way we are going, when the world economy has been shut down without making an once of difference to the climate, people will say of Wikipedia, why did they not publish anyone prepared to stand up against this. 103.14.71.235 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — 103.14.71.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

103.14.71.235's little rant contributes so little to this discussion I am in favor of striking it, even at the loss of a "Keep". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - or we have to add people like the IP above me to the list if they happen to have a random publication somewhere, making them technically scientists? The scope of the article is too vague. There are clearly some people where it is notable that they disagree with nearly everyone else, but for most of the people in the list this is not true. --mfb (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, It is an interesting topic and contains interesting information., does not deserve to be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's interesting. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: Wasn't your own !vote comment was based off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:LIKELYVIOLATION? If you want Alex-h to follow up with additional information to back up their arguement, just do so. Per WP:ATA, ... it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, I am concerned with WP:NOT and WP:BLP which are fundamental policies. Just pointing an policy in a contribution is bad; but there's nothing wrong in pointing out that somebody else's contribution is worthless (as many of the !keep votes here are). Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, The article is well sourced, per WP:V, and clearly passes WP:LISTN and the scientists are notable, each having their own Wikipedia page. I take note of the delete arguments that some of these experts are of scientific disciplines that are on the outskirts or edges of climate science, fine then add sources stating that, per WP:NPOV. As per these scientists being a small, even fringe, minority of scientists, they are still a notable prominent fringe minority and the article clearly states, even with a convincing graph, that these scientists are a very small minority. Science progresses with minority opinions criticising majority opinion as it usually helps the majority opinion strengthen and refine their opinion whilst refuting the minority opinion. I can see no benefit in deleting minority opinion, rather as an encyclopedia we should be educating our readers by saying, in an encyclopedic sourced tone, here is the minority opinion and notable people who support it and here is the reason they are wrong, per the majority scientific opinion instead of just delete, delete, delete, suppress, suppress, suppress, hide, hide, hide, pushing editors towards fringe POV poor quality websites instead. From reading the list, as a lay person with limited knowledge of climate science, I come away with the view that these scientists are a very small minority and on available evidence are highly likely to be incorrect in their opinions, but I still believe the list has encyclopedic value. I fear deletion of this article advances the outside opinion that Wikipedia is prone to biased editing and deletion decisions due largely to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, as per the top right of this page, there have been 7 previous deletion discussions re. this article, 4 of which resulted in ‘keep’ and 3 of which resulted in ‘no consensus’. It seems like we are voting again and again until we eventually vote the ‘right way’ and get the delete result. To me there needs to be an overwhelming delete consensus if we are to overrule or set aside 7 previous deletion discussions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can see no benefit in deleting minority opinion, rather as an encyclopedia we should be educating our readers by saying, in an encyclopedic sourced tone, here is the minority opinion and notable people who support it and here is the reason they are wrong — except that this list is a terrible way of presenting "the" minority opinion, because it violates policy to combine multiple different minority opinions according to a standard that was invented for this page. We can explain climate-science denial much better without this list than with it. And as for overriding "7 previous deletion discussions", the last one was six years ago and explicitly left room for the debate to be reopened if the list did not improve — which, spoilers, it didn't. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability, see WP:LISTN. The big difference is that Wikipedia requires the scientists be notable as in Wikipedia. Plus cites are given to sources saying they disagree and what they have said. So they are not inflated by people saying they are scientists but never having used their university degree or even worse by names of people who don't disagree or Micky Mouse names. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability — no, they don't. The bullet-point criteria for being included in this list are not those used by the references on which the list nominally relies. They are also rigged to make the list as big as possible, by putting equal emphasis on disputing details of projections as on the fundamental facts. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for so many reasons already explored in great detail above, but not least because many scientists are open to a change of mine , and many do change their minds, and this is never going to keep up. Some scientists agree with the principle hypothoses but disagree about the predicted outcomes or probabilities, othere diagree with the central hypothesis but agree that there are anthropogenic impacts on the climate. How could such a lsit reflect such variabilities? As a list it is indicriminate, partial and is generated by WP:SYNTH.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• "How could such a list reflect such variabilities?" By listing four specific reasons that a scientist could disagree with IPCC 3, and then listing each scientist under one of those four headings. That's how.Kolg8 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think he's talking about that a scientist might change their mind. And of course one might just at this moment you read this, or the next person reads this. The scientists on the list in general seem very happy to have their views expounded, there's no real BLP problem. And they don't actually seem to change their minds much as far as disagreeing with the consensus is concerned - but quite often they change the grounds they do it on. And if they do change their minds they make this obvious too and generally there's enough people interested in the topic to take note. This can however be a problem in some other articles where the topic starts fading in current notability. Dmcq (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. This page is inherently POV and essentially an "attack page". How about making a page List of scientists who are idiots? That would be a very long list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

For this thought exercise, I imagine such a page would include, along with those actual having poor cognitive ability, also those who demonstrate occasional lapses of common sense, those who are well-educated but have critical gaps in their knowledge, who demonstrate early symptoms of age-related dementia, too ossified in their ideas to keep up with the current data, too arrogant to admit they might ever be wrong, intelligent but lacking in critical reasoning, or who simply feel a need to demonstrate their independent thought by denying some general consensus, or simply, who just 'play the fool' for attention. In other words, the same problem as with the list under discussion, a false-grouping of diverse people generated to make a point. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest before starting on a list of idiot scientists you try and find sources for notability of the list? Have there been notable lists of them? Are the lists talked about in reliable sources? If you can show good notability then I would support the creation of such a list. Also perhaps you can start something on the NPOV talk page about things that are 'inherently' POV and therefore should not be allowed on Wikipedia as currently I see nothing there about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

With regards to your thought exercise, would Barry Marshall [] have been included in the list of idiot scientists? Here's what was said about him before he became a Nobel Laureate.

"His work was unconventional, not to say heretical, and in 1986, he was invited to discuss it at a gastroenterology conference in the United States. His wife came along and, while doing some sightseeing, overheard a conversation among some other gastroenterologists’ wives who happened to be sitting in front of her on a bus. “They were talking about this terrible person that they imported from Australia to speak,” Marshall told me. “You know: ‘How could they put such rubbish in the conference?’" unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

If such a list was notable with multiple reliable sources supporting WP:LISTN and people described him as a crackpot in reliable sources and he espoused views that he acknowledged were crackpot by the mainstream then at the time I would certainly support his inclusion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it follows reliable sources - it does not lead. However being a crackpot does not ensure you are right - there's an awfully large number of scientists who were acknowled to be right in a timely fashion comppared to those who were for years thought to be crackpots. In fact I wonder if there are notable sources for a list of scientists who were thought to be crackpots but later vindicated. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes WP:CLUE cannot be legislated. This list is as inherently POV (and for similar reasons) as a List of Jewish murderers would be (in fact ISTR we had trouble with attempts to create lists like that a while ago). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Was there notable lists of jewish murderers being talked about in multiple reliable sources? If so I woud have thought there would be some thought put into the policies for dealing with a problem like that and I'd like to see how the problem was resolved. If the arguments there were relevant to this then fine, use them. If not then this is heading towards Reductio ad Hitlerum. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

(Some searching later) Aha - it was in fact List of convicted Jewish criminals. It was deleted and salted for potential BLP problems and as a "POV magnet". The case parallels this one! Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a current List of Jewish American mobsters. It seems well cited for notability. Do you think an AfD should be raised on it? I shall try and find the reasons given for the deletion of the list you gave. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems List of convicted Jewish criminals had no notability and was pure OR so not really relevant here. The main reason for delete was that it was WP:Attack page, which doesn't apply here as the people concerned are happy to be identified with their views. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, List of Wikipedians who are idiots is easier to compile. "Scientist" typically requires an academic degree. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Does the topic have notability in reliable sources? See WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Criteria are too unclear and dynamic. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per most people above. I haven't looked at the history here to see whether the broad categories of reasons for disagreement are new, but even if they are they are still overbroad (and most likely original research in many instances), there is no requirement for a person included on this list to be speaking from a posistion of knowledge or to be speaking in reliable sources. I would not have a problem with a list based on reliable sources that explains any neuance, notes any conflicts of interest, excludes (or presents separaetly) those whose arguments have been fully debunked and notes points of agreement with consensus as well as points of disagreement. This list has none of those features. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete- Xoreaster and Drmies already explained this better than I could. This list jumbles together groups of people as diverse as contrarians-for-the-sake-of-it, paid coal industry shills, emeriti in another field who think they can make unsubstantiated pronouncements in this one, scientists who broadly accept the reality of climate science but have quibbles about one study or another, and perhaps even a handful who genuinely dispute the reality of climate science. BLP nightmare written to promote a biased POV. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: There are too many agendas distorting the science. Unfortunately there are people who don't want us to know that so many scientists do not buy into global warming alarmism. Global warming alarmists want us to believe that they have an almost universal consensus of scientists behind them. We must not let them hide reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.148.16 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — 207.38.148.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And if anybody was still in any doubt that this page is a POV-Magnet, this contribution says much ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The article starts by saying that 97-98% of climate scientists agree with the consensus. If that is so, it does not seem unreasonable that there should be a list of the 2-3% who do not. It is a fact, whether you agree or not, that some people think dissent from the consensus is suppressed. If this article is deleted, that will only fuel those views. It does not seem harmful to me, or against the spirit of Wikipedia to show such a list. What would surely be wrong would be to delete the list because those listed are somehow not approved of. If it's a fact that they disagree with the consensus, that's good enough for me that the fact should be reported. I would support it being restricted to climate scientists though. That seems relevant. Phil McGrove 17:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If this listicle is deleted, the denialists will doubtless cry "conspiracy!". If it is kept, they will cry "we triumped over the conspiracy!". We aren't obliged to care either way. The problem is not that the people on the list said something "not approved of"; it's that the construction of the list violates policy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt 7 Deletion noms?? This is absurd. This article fails WP:BLP in maligning its subjects, and presents a WP:FRINGE view with WP:UNDUE weight. There is no article for scientists who support climate change, because that list would be absolutely enormous. The fact that we have a list for those that don't? Undue. The inclusion criteria are very loose, and I see no feasible way to clean them up. Legitimate scientists are being bunched in with absolute nutters, which makes the real scientists look worse, and the nutters look better. BLP fiasco. Also, this thread is attracting POV keep votes that show that this article exists for the singular purpose of allowing climate change deniers to say "Look! Even Wikipedia knows that not all scientist agree!" Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You might feel maligned if the description was applied to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientists in the list feel maligned - quite he opposite. The list criteria are based on the citations in references 13,14 and 15 of the list, these provide the notabiity to satisfy WP:LISTN, and they say scientists and allow scientists besides climate scientists. Which is exactly what is also done for scientific institutes in Scientific consensus on climate change and I beieve quite rightly too. As to you beliefs about the effects of this article in the wider world, that is irrelevant to Wikipedia but personally I think you are wrong and I also think deleting notable topics on that basis damages Wikipedia's reputation for reliable unbiased information. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity: references 13, 14, and 15 are: James Inhofe's Senate list, the Oregon Petition, and the Heartland Institute list. All three are produced by outfits with a clear vested interest in pushing climate denial with an established record of bullshit. None of them could plausibly be considered reliable sources for the purposes of WP:LISTN. Grouping zoologists and botanists alongside serious climate scientists makes no sense for anyone with any actual interest in understanding climate science. Nblund ^talk 01:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Very notable bullshit as they are discussed in multiple reliable sources and so satisfy WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability does not confer reliability on bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Reliable sources can describe bullshit and make a topic notable. Trump and Putin and many other politicians bullshit all the time, that doesn't make what they say an unfit subject for Wikipedia - multiple reliable sources discuss what they say. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny how we keep hearing about these "reliable sources" that consider such a list as this, but nobody has actually been able to produce one (though instead we have been given some glimpses into some murky corners of the climate denial crankosphere). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You only have to go to the next sentence to see three reference to reliable sources talking about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The reliable source count is zero. You can point to none. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Source count is greater than zero. Proof by demonstration: 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How is that a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia (except for one maybe attesting to the existence of the Heartland Institute)? jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a better policy based reason than 'Nope' is needed for dismissing the references 16,17 and 18 - [2], [3], and [4]. Why exactly are they not reliable sources talking about the lists? Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, you're waving at sources. But, checking them, there is zero RS that discussed lists such this article makes. You cannot provide even one. If I'm wrong you may easily disprove it by providing your very best source. Just one. I won't hold my breath ...Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The provide the basis for notability as described in WP:LISTN, they make the topic notable. As it says there

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

The reliable sources discuss lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Actually, I'm not. That very notable bullshit is very notable does not mean it ceases to be bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use reliable in that way when WP:Reliable sources is what could be relevant here. If by not reliable you mean it comes under WP:FRINGE, fine I agree with that, - but that guideline does not say that being fringe is a reason for deletion. In fact it says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I shouldn't refer to reliability because a policy on reliability might apply - I thought that was why I was referring to reliability. And I don't know where the 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' strawman is coming from, but it isn't helpful. A bad source is a bad source, a bad list is a bad list - they are related but independent conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources in the list ahowing notability are references 16,17 and 18 listed above which discuss the lists in references 13, 14 and 15. I don't know why you stuck 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' in, it doesn't occur anywhere in the AfD. Perhaps you misread the quote from WP:FRINGE? I put in the WP:FRINGE bit as I thought you were using bullshit and not reliable as synonyms - not that you hadn't read the next sentence in the artice or what's above. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect here between people who think denialist literature can be used as a justification for this list and those who think that's outrageous (I'm in the latter camp). What I fail to understand is the arguments of the most vociferous who seem to argue out of both sides of their mouth: (1) that the existence of denialist "lists" confers notability on this Wikipedia list and (2) we can do better by using other sources other than these lists. I find this argument dizzying and it is the basis for my claim that the list is WP:OR. That's, I believe, the main problem I have with the keep rationale. jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The justification is all the reliable sources talking about the lists, that is what makes such a list a notable topic. Please read the first paragraph at WP:LISTN. The criteria should be based on the lists but the lists themselves do not dictate the contents of a list article on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, however. If a source talks about lists but then we change the content of the list, the source is no longer talking about the list. Ship of Theseus notwithstanding. jps (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep NationalLitchfield (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That isn't a reliable source, and pointing to it isn't an argument. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Delete seems to exist promote fringe POV, combines multiple aspects of disagreement with consensus, and as a result encourages inclusion of people who may agree with most of the consensus. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete any list with this title and scope will inherently give undue weight to the fringe theory of climate change denial, because it will largely consist of a long list of people who support that fringe theory, giving the impression that it's a widely held view. A paragraph or two at the top of the page pointing out that they represent a tiny minority cannot hope to counterbalance this. It is also lumping together people with wildly disparate views, from people diagreeing with the IPCC assessment (including those who think it is too optimistic) to those who don't think global warming is happening or who don't think it's anthropogenic. Hut 8.5 17:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it. Nevertheless, something just occurred to me which is worth mentioning. There have been a lot of arguments that the article's flaw is that it combines multiple reasons that scientists disagree with the consensus, and that somehow this is a problem ("wildly disparate views," see above). I'm not sure that it is a problem, but if it is, I think it can be shown that every scientist on the page disagrees with the third conclusion of the IPCC 3. So if we need a unifying reason to group them all together, I would think that provides it. Let me explain.
  • The three main tenents of IPCC 3, paraphrased, are:
    • 1) The global temperature has warmed since the late 1800s;
    • 2) At least a portion of this warming (the last 50 years) is caused by increased CO2; and
    • 3) The continued emission of CO2 will cause warming by as much as 5.8 C by 2100, which will be bad for the planet.
  • So, if a scientist disagrees with 1, and believes that it has not warmed in the last 50 years, it also means that they believe the increase in CO2 has not caused this warming, which means they also disagree with 2. And if they believe that increased CO2 has not caused warming, then they also believe that a continued increase of CO2 will not increase temperature 5.8 C by 2100, so they disagree with 3.
  • A scientist could agree with 1 (they believe it has warmed), but if they disagree with 2 (they believe the warming was not caused by CO2), then they would also disagree with 3 (more CO2 will not increase temperature by 5.8C by 2100).
  • Lastly, a scientist could agree with 1 (it has warmed) and 2 (the warming was caused by CO2), but disagree with 3 (it will not warm by 5.8C by 2100 because the models are wrong, or it could warm that much but it will be good for the planet).
  • So, regardless of which IPCC 3 conclusion a scientist disagrees with, they all disagree with the 3rd conclusion, that increased CO2 will increase temperature by as much as 5.8 C by 2100, and that this warming will be bad for the planet.
  • Now, perhaps the way the article displays their reason for disagreement with IPCC 3 is a little confusing, but it is really just a different way to say that each and every one of them disagrees IPCC 3 conclusion 3.
    • "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections." That's disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes." That's disagreement with 2, and therefore, ultimate disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown." That's disagreement with 2, and therefore, ultimate disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences." That's disagreement with 3.
    • "Deceased Scientists." I don't know which conclusion these scientists disagreed with, but as long as they disagreed with one of them, they disagreed with the third. Kolg8 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• You'd be much better off trying to be a little less prolix. In general I think the longer the argument the further away from a policy based reason it is. The only only good reason for anything longer is explicit examples dempnstrating one's policy of guideline point. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll be less prolix (had to look that one up). Arguments that the opinions of the scientists on the page are too disparate to be included in a single article are wrong, because they all disagree with the third conclusion of IPCC 3. El Duderino . . . if you're not into the whole brevity thing. Kolg8 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Great, so we have List of scientists, many of whom lack relevant expertise, who have ever disagreed in some manner with the third tenet of a superseded almost-20-year-old report on climate change. Yeah, that's a worthy article. "I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it." I know it is not a vote, but someone on the down-side of a 2-to-1 expressed preference against their desired outcome has every self-interested reason to declare it to be a clear draw. How about we leave it to the closer to decide where consensus lies. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a much better title for the article! Let's rename it, then rename it again every few years to stay current: "more than 20-year-old report", "almost 30-year-old report" and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This list is what you get when you try to pretend that science is static, and decide that disagreement with some report remains noteworthy after that report is obsolete. My title simply accurately describes a list that is too specific to be notable, but is made to appear notable by pretending its selection criteria aren't disqualifyingly specific in some senses and disqualifyingly vague in others to serve as a proxy for opinion on the overarching issue. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see how this list could transcend being either a fringe promotion platform; a witch-hunting register; or an amorphous mess (possibly in combination with either of the other two). Some of the strenuous argumentation, including directly above, provides a good example of some backward motivations on display here. Some parties really want these people highlighted, and if that requires constructing a page-length argument structure just to define inclusion criteria that will capture the lot, then that's what they will bloody well attempt. This encyclopedia doesn't work like that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. or Draftify. Ohhh, dear. This is like... oof. Idk. Basically, my hot take on this list is pretty simple: a notable scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus on climate change is decently interesting while a scientist who accepts the consensus is... well just like the rest of 'em. I disagree with how the list is formatted (it should be more patently obvious what it is these folks are saying and how and why most aren't qualified to say it), but that is more of a matter for clean up than anything.
  Honestly, this feels more like a WP:NOTCENSORED arguement, but I'll just say what's on my mind. It's probably going to be either (1) we publish this list and get to inject necessary context for who these people are or (2) climate deniers publish this sorta list and make it sound like there is this huge secret group of dissenters that The Left™ doesn't want you to know about. I think people ought to know that these climate denying scientists happen to include Keith E. Idso the botanist and David Deming the geologist.
  We need a better list, though. Maybe I'll clean this up later just for the fun of it. Were I to do so, I would probably use sources like these.^{[5][6][7][8][9]} My point is that there is a right way to do this, but this currently doesn't reflect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  If I wasn't clear enough already; my version of this list would be cut pretty heavily to only the living people who claim that climate change is not caused by man-made carbon emissions. I'd axe most of the list and only go by what is published in multiple WP:RS. The list's scope relies on primary sources, and I totally disagree with that. It should just be whatever reliable sources say about a person. If my bar to entry is too high where the list just has only five entries, then so be it.
  In case it wasn't obvious already, I disagree with most other people in the "Keep" column. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Restricting the list only living people is a bit of problem in that some of the most notable "skeptics" have died. This leads into a key distinction (which I don't recall having been made): is the intent to list current "skeptics"? Or take a more historical view? I think we should specify dates of stated "skepticism", most recent relevant statements, retirement, and death. Also which Assessment Review they disagree with, or was current when they disagreed. Sure, some folks here will wail about synthesis, but the additional information does not reach a conclusion not supported by any source, it simply adds more information so the reader can determine the currency of a person's views.

You're right, it should be a better list. Which is not attained by deletion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: The issue with including people have since passed away is that they aren't able to change their minds about the subject, and the science is always changing (just like not in the way "skeptics" say it). If this was merely a list that of people who don't accept the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report... well that is pretty static and uninteresting. It also would group up any hypothetical individuals who think the climate models used by IPCC weren't aggressive enough with the people who think it's a conspiracy invented by China. The only way this list works, to me, is with a strict inclusion criteria and a dynamic format.
Readers would be served as much background as we can provide to the extent a WP:RS reports it. Synthesis, based off my understanding, occurs not when we have Fact A from source A followed by Face B from source B; it occurs when we use sources A & B to make Fact C. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - this is article shows 2 side to a debate - and the list is very valuable - Wikipedia could be accused of bias and censorship on an issue of public debate if it removes this article Shambhallah (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Showing two side of a debate can be expressing against our guidance in fringe topics; "it's valuable" is not a legitimate reason to keep an article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. It fails a whole load of alphabet soup (so I won't link them), notably SYNTH, OR, NPOV and LISTN, not to mention anything else (UNDUE? FRINGE? An argument could be made for all of them). There are simply too many things wrong with it. I think Xoreaster and Bearian said it the best, although there are a lot of other well-argued Delete commentaries. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You say "An argument could be made for all" of these points. But could you actually list the specific content which violates WP:OR? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like Gish gallop to me. No actual argument except lots of WP:TLAs. It is supposed to be up to the people quoting one of those policies and guidelines to give a short explanation of its particular application, not for people to try and figure out the grounds for objection and then expect for some other pure TLA objection to come along for them to again puzzle over. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - This list gives undue weight to a fringe perspective which is already covered at Climate change denial and seems designed to promote the "both sides" fallacy. If kept, the criteria would need to be adjusted to include only climate scientists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Dlthewave: I'd like to get your thoughts on this sandbox version I just made. I see a possible future where the list includes non-Climate scientists but with necessary context. The version I linked to needs a ton more prose added to it, but it should give you the picture of what I am going for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You have given no evidence of notability of your list. Can you point to reliable sources discussing lists of individuals against the Paris Climate Accord? See WP:LISTN. You need to start from sources which give the criteria and show the topic is notable before embarking on making a list like that in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmcq: Are you serious? My version totally meets LISTN, and I don't appreciate being spoken down to like that. I included two different peer-reviewed studies in the Further reading section and the completed entries were sourced and verified from four separately reliable editorial outfits (of which two were primarily focused on the topic as a group). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I find the sandbox version wholly inadequate. It includes only space for people that were in favor of pulling out of the Paris accord, which should include people wishing to do so for political reasons without considering the science. And it includes space for those disagreeing with the Hockey Stick graph, but there is already a far better article on that in Wikipedia. However, it fails to do what this article does: it provides space for notable scientists who believe they have a scientific basis to argue against the "climate change consensus." And the inconvenient truth is that there are 80 or so scientists, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academy of Sciences, professors at prestigious universities and actual authors of IPCC reports, who meet that criteria.Kolg8 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kolg8: It's an early and incomplete draft article I made in less than an hour. It's rather incomplete, but even still my preferred method of organization is to subdivide the list based off individual actions taken by the scientists. I also don't think the list is as extensive as you make it out to be. My bar to entry is higher than most in that I am only interested in scientists who do not believe in the current consensus that man-made carbon emissions are the cause for climate change. You made a nice pun though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I think Black Kite sums it up well. I don't see how this isn't an arbitrary snthesis, or what its notability is as a standalone list. I also agree that, given the multiple nominations, it should be salted as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination's claim that the topic doesn't pass WP:LISTN is blatantly false because entire books are written about these people – see below. The other claims are likewise false because the list has been extensively curated, debated and developed ever since it was first created. Its creator was not some wild-eyed denialist but was Robert Rohde who is a respectable scientist working in this field. Others who have supported the list in the past include William Connolley who is likewise an expert in the field. They seem to be away currently – perhaps they are burnt out or too busy to waste time on such repetitive and vexatious discussion. There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger with climate change denial or environmental skepticism. This would be consistent with our policy WP:PRESERVE, facilitating further development and discussion as the years continue to pass and the outcomes become clearer. Deleting and salting the page would clearly be an act of censorship, trying to shut down further activity, contrary to WP:CCC. As this is a sensitive topic, subject to arbcom sanctions, we should not take intemperate action contrary to the evidence and our policies. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Boykoff, Maxwell (2009). "Ch. 39: Carbonundrums: The Role of the Media: Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians". In Schneider, Stephen H.; Rosencranz, Armin; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; et al. (eds.). Climate change science and policy. Island Press. p. 401. ISBN 978-1-59726-567-6.
2. Fleming, James Rodger (2005). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518973-5.
3. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). "The Denial of Global Warming". Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury. pp. 169–215. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.
4. Solomon, Lawrence (2010). The Deniers. Richard Vigilante Books. ISBN 978-0-9800763-7-0.
5. Powell, James Lawrence (2011). "The Scientist Deniers". The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
6. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists". In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosber, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0.

• All of your argument would be a good rational for keeping the general article on the concept of climate change denial. It does not, however, present any rational for keeping around a random list of names of people who ascribe to it. --Jayron32 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• The list is clearly not random. All the entries are notable people and their inclusion is backed up a clear rationale and sourcing which has been extensively detailed and debated by numerous editors – the talk page has 39 pages of archive. Consider, for example, the first entry – Garth Paltridge. He is a respectable scientist and has published a book specifically about climate change and the extent to which there is or isn't a credible consensus. Notice that his page is not in a relevant category and, even if it were, there would be no in-line citation supporting it as there's no facility for this. It's the category system which is semi-random, unverified junk. The list is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Original Research by Synthesis is not fine. And synthesis with heaps of talk-page text behind it is still synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Pointing at policies without evidence or examples is just an empty assertion per WP:VAGUEWAVE. I've produced plenty of evidence above such as a stack of books from multiple university presses. These demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic. Any remaining issues are therefore just a matter of ordinary editing per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Showing a stack of books from multiple university presses may demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic, but it doesn't at all imply that this actual list is in compliance with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. It's not that there are a few remaining issues, it's that the basic premise is flawed: gathering together a miscellany of individuals based on a criterion invented for the list itself is, at root, not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quite, otherwise we'd be open to List of physicians who question vaccine safety, List of historians who question mainstream accounts of the Holocaust, etc. It's mind-blowing that this is the only "List of scientists ..." article that Wikipedia carries. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Slippery slope is a logic fallacy, no one is proposing those. For list criteria, absolutely this is what we do as editors, every list has criteria for inclusion, often invented by Wikipedia editors for practical reasons, contrary to popular believe there is a great deal of editorial descision making on Wikipedia but that doesn't make it OR. The topic has to be supportable in reliable sources and this has been done in Andrew's sources which demonstrate reliable sources often list notable deniers. -- GreenC 15:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• We do actually cover those other cases; you just have to get the title right. For example, see holocaust_denial#Post-World_War_II_history which lists plenty of notable people including Harry Elmer Barnes. And we have category:Holocaust deniers by nationality with numerous entries too. And, for the vaccine issue, we have category:Anti-vaccinationism which lists lots of anti-vaccine activists, media and organisations. Andrew D. (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly, and in this case we have Climate change denial. What we don't have is my imagined list articles based (like this) one ingeniously constructed sets of criteria which are peculiar only to the handful of Wikipedia editors presiding over the list. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Category:Climate change skepticism and denial exists, which is sufficient as well; we don't need a stand alone article to duplicate the effort there. --Jayron32 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:CLN explains that "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other ... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists" In this case, because the material is sensitive, lists are better than categories because the entries can be explained, qualified and verified with in-line citations, as is done in this case. I can see no benefit in using categories exclusively and the nay-sayers do not provide any rationale for doing so. If you inspect the talk page for the equivalent category, you can see how poorly maintained it is. There's hardly any discussion and it seems to be quite half-baked. It appears that no effort has been put into the category while the list has had 761 editors since it was created 14 years ago and its talk page has had 711 editors too. The list is where all the effort has gone while the category has been comparatively neglected. Andrew D. (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• You specifically brought up the category angle, not me. If you did not want to make it a focus of your defense of this article, you maybe should've not done that. Instead, what you should have done is probably nothing at all (advice I am going to take myself at the conclusion of this paragraph, and probably should have taken before I started writing it, but could not, because at my core I'm an asshole) because you've already made your point, and repeating the same arguments over and over again does not add to the consensus nor does it give the admins any help in interpreting the consensus of the discussion. --Jayron32 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• This section of indents relates to my !vote and so it is appropriate for me to respond to points and challenges which are made to it. I have rebutted the objections made and so need to make it clear that my !vote stands. If one doesn't do this, I find that closers sometimes suppose that the objections are accepted – see here for a fresh example. So, let's be quite clear about the status of my !vote. I have presented good evidence and policy-based argument and have rebutted the various counter-arguments. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would never dream of attempting to get you to change it. --Jayron32 18:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well we still have List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes which just recently survived AfD. At least a scientist's views on some aspect of science seems to be connected to their career although it's true because of the complexity we haven't been able to limit this list to those who are actually commenting on their field of research. I question the claims like that made in the AfD that there is any real evidence of a connection between being a professional sportsperson and crime.

  Anyway, I think a more significant point is that AFAIK, this is one of the few areas where this sort of thing actually gets some degree of mainstream attention. Evolution is probably the only other. Maybe some anti-vaxxer has composed a list of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy, but I've never heard of it. Likewise for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS. Even something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal (for individual people) is not really something which IMO gets attention like this sort of list.

  By comparison, the Oregon Petition, Leipzig Declaration etc receive significant main stream attention. (As did A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism e.g. Project Steve.) Further from what I've seen, there is often a greater reluctance to be identified in that fashion for many of the other possible lists too compared to a willingness to be on a list like this. (Although it's true that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation] and similar stuff has failed at AfD.)

  Note that I'm explicitly not saying any of this is a reason to keep, in fact I've expressed no opinion and don't intend to. I'm simply saying that there could be reasons why this list has merit whereas most others don't. Also I do see a bunch of redirects like List of political parties in the United Kingdom opposed to austerity, List of scientific and medical advances opposed by religion, List of prominent living pacifists, List of people in Playboy 2000-Present, List of old television series that were returned to after years which make me wonder whether we really need to salt this article if it's deleted (as I've said before) or instead it might be better to recreate it as a redirect. Not that I'm saying any of these redirects should be kept.

  P.S. Interesting enough, we also have List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. Also Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism and um whatever News media phone hacking scandal reference lists is.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Nusan Porter

Jack Nusan Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indications of how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. While that notability policy includes ...has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as a criteria, but I'm not convinced that an award from the American Sociological Association qualifies as such. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Two awards, not one. And given that most of Porter's work is within the discipline of sociology, and that he works within US academia, who else would you expect to be making prestigious national awards, other than the American Sociological Association? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with OP. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Many published reviews of his books on JSTOR (which I am working on collating and adding to the article) give him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and as founding editor of the Journal of the History of Sociology [10] [11] he very likely passes WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominator's note - I'm fine with ending this early as SNOWKEEP (or "nomination withdrawn", if that's more appropriate, as the keep arguments have convinced me that there is sufficient evidence of notability here). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It can't be withdrawn in its current state unless François Robere also changes his opinion, but snow is still possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it kosher to reach out to François Robere to see what he thinks about this? Omanlured (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as the notification is neutral, on the lines of "would you like to take another look now" rather than "please change your opinion". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced. I've had hard AfDs on scholars that have a much higher citation count, but the journal work probably qualifies, as David notes. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, thanks for taking the circle back on this. I think this will probably end up being closed as 'keep' anyway due to the factors that you and David Eppstein noted. Omanlured (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C8 as demonstrated above by David Eppstein. TJMSmith (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the awards confer notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Gary Kimura

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

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

Associate professor, no sources to indicate how he meets WP:NACADEMIC. Presumably he's mentioned in the cited book about NTFS, but that alone would not suffice for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails GNG and NACADEMIC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment He's not just "mentioned" in the cited book; it describes his work in depth and gives some background biographical data as well. I'd !vote "keep" if there were another comparable source, but most of the Google Books previews are only in snippet form, so they're hard to evaluate. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Small GS cites for super high cited field; WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
• Comment He's not an associate professor, but an affiliate associate professor. It looks to me like "affiliate" should be read as "respected adjunct", which argues against WP:NPROF. The NTFS stuff looks interesting, and a Google books search indicates that Kimura is mentioned on 28 pages of the cited book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "affiliate" means "don't bother trying to apply WP:PROF one way or the other, since he works in industry and has a nominal connection to academia". XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I see sources for his role in Windows OS design. Are they enough, or is that that his only claim to fame? I would tend to say they aren't enough and that the OS work is his only claim to fame. The professor position is a "courtesy" gig, similar to a visiting position. Departments give these out when they can get professionals form the field to come and teach. the position is for 12 months, is not tenure-track reviewed and carries no benefits. As it says here, " In 1999 Gary returned to the University as an affiliate professor teaching the operating system design classes." (Everyone working in the department is going to love that arrangement as they have someone who actually designed an operating system teaching the class, and more importantly, the other faculty are released from teaching that class and can do their research!) As to Kimura's actual position, research is not implied or mentioned in the position. Since NPROF is all about research, it should not be considered here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2019 (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 redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect". Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Oprah Effect

The Oprah Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NEO.The article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase and fails WP:GNG TruthGuardians (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or heavily rewrite to reflect what people commonly refer to when they refer to "The Oprah Effect", which isn't this. Artw (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect", though it may warrant a separate article as it has received a lot of coverage in RS, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect" Gokulh97 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Phrase is not widely known and failed to gain traction beyond her very own circle.Factlibrary1 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Angelo De Augustine

Angelo De Augustine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The artist has one "bona fide studio album" on a minor label. Half the references are simply invitations to stream or watch the material, which is marginally promotional. And the information provided is little more than the discography. WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Soft keep or, possibly even, Keep Notability guidelines for biographies. Emerging consensus at Erica C. Barnett's deletion discussion seems to be favouring keep despite most of that article's references being to the Seattle journalist-turned-Internet-blogger's investigative journalism examples of events at Seattle city hall. Angelo De Augustine has one or more "bona fide" studio albums, been reviewed by Paste and Anna Wintour's VOGUE magazine, and had reviews of his works published in Exclaim!, The Irish Times, and National Public Radio (NPR). I would actually argue WP:TOOSOON favours keep in this case due to their being significant press coverage about him or his albums. He kind of feels like a Dallas Smith (singer) to me, in terms of level of notoriety. Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: seems to pass at least criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO by having his last two albums widely reviewed [18], [19], not just in the US but by reputable publications in Canada and the UK as well, which makes it more likely that there are articles or features on the subject himself aside from the reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as his works have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources such as Exclaim, The Irish Times, NPR and others shown at metacritic linked above imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard3120. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Adnan Samad Khan

Adnan Samad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage as such. What ref's are there are blogs and affiliate content, including a new newspapers which seems to picking content from the web as is of dubious quality. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another not notable article created by the same user. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The creator also has created other articles about Pakistani actors without checking their notability. This subject is a new actor and he has started acting career on 2019 by acting on a film and not in main role. Subject isn't notable. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete non notable actor with no important roles to his credit. Geoffroi 19:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Totally fails WP:NACTOR NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. Clear consensus by permitted !voters that there is notability shown Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tfue

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

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

non notable person with only few rs and all of them are unreliable. There are also no biographies and a slight content career --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination is a bit odd. This is not a character but a person. There are references from Newsweek and The Hollywood reporter. Count me as at least a procedural keep unless someone can clear up this nomination.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Cube lurker, well that's what the IP commented https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tfue&oldid=925833474 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I noticed you were copying over an IP's nomination. I was referring to the content of the nomination, and not any procedural work you did.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fine, already fix the typo. the topic has only few reliable sources and doesn't meet notability. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Restate my keep. We have Newsweek and the The Hollywood reporter. That's WP:GNG as I see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

*Delete As a Nominator, Poorly written with only few reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked

I'm assuming this is the original nominator per [20] and per the comment posted on my talk page [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

*Delete I might not be a Hater, but this person isnt got reliable sources or anything besides playing fortnite. Same to the other streamer that got also nominated. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment this nominating for deletion is Suspicious. An Ip has nominated and another Ip voted "Delete". Subject is notable as a Youtuber and has 5.7 million followers on Instagram. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC) :An Ip already admitted that he is a nominator. Having many subscribers and followers doesn't make the topic notable, it depends on the coverage. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Every IP or new user in this discussion so far (and that is everyone who has !voted to delete) is either an open proxy, or a specific banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment is he notable enough outside of his issues with Faze Clan? I only see articles related to that and his Twitter ban, so this might fall under WP:BLP1E? If he's not notable outside of Faze Clan then redirect to Faze Clan of which he is a prominent member.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I see plenty of coverage regarding Tfue.
  • ESPN: Ninja, Tfue at risk of missing Fortnite World Cup duos final [22]
  • ESPN: Fortnite World Cup Finals: Who to watch [23]
  • Fox News: Fortnite star Tfue uses racial slur, but Twitch isn't commenting on rule violation [24],
  • Newsweek: Tfue contract leak? Faze Clan streamer responds to organization [25]
  • Verge: In the escalating fight between Twitch and Mixer, YouTube is the real winner [26]

According to the Verge article, he is Twitch's most followed active channel. Pbrks (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Verge and other sources prove the person passes the General Notability guidelines. The same IP nominated multiple things with the help of someone else, and the same two now blocked accounts went to all of them to say delete. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TimTheTatman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scump. Dream Focus 06:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Tfue seems to have gathered significant coverage from reliable sources. Some sources include:[27],[28],[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Therefore Tfue has satifisfied WP:GNG from this coverage.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep widely in-depth coverage in reliable sources as a notable influencer. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is a known influencer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 19 November 2019 (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 speedy keep. No unblocked good faith editor has requested deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

TimTheTatman

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

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

few rs and lots of unreliable sources, which the topic is not notable. the template has been placed for a long time and no improvements yet. --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

*Delete As a Nominator, just a loads of unreliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked single purpose account

*Weak Delete. It contains few good sources, but still fails notability perhaps. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet

•  Checkuser note: Every !vote above including the IP nominator is either an open proxy, or a banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural close for this bad nomination.  A single purpose IP addresses can not nominate a group of articles for deletion, and you shouldn't do it for them.  Since the only ones appearing to try to delete it are now blocked sock puppets, kindly close this bad nomination. Dream Focus 06:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dream Focus, well there is no such rule that I can find that prevents IP from nominating articles. Even if we later ban them, I think they should be left open until there is a clear "keep" consensus. If you wish to change the rules, hold a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to find sources sufficient to demonstrate this institution exists. Searches reveal a National Institute of Computer Sciences, a National Academy of Computer Sciences, et al. but all references to a "National Computer Sciences Academy" appear to be mirrors or non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Shmenge Brothers

The Shmenge Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

So, what makes these fictional characters notable? Sure, members of my generation and those younger who haven’t heard of these two characters knows who John Candy was from movies and a Saturday morning cartoon and Eugene Levy from movies and as Johnny Rose in Schitt’s Creek, but these two characters they played on SCTV in the 1980s still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG to avoid WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:JUNK. Pahiy (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Soft delete by merge and redirect to Second_City_Television#Sketches_and_characters. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable topic lacking sources. TTN (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ali Public Secondary School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ali Public Secondary School
• Articles for deletion/Ali Public Secondary School (2nd nomination)

Ali Public Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete an article with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Autumn Ridge, Arizona

Autumn Ridge, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a non-notable neighborhood within Phoenix, Arizona. Does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources," necessary to meet WP:GNG MB 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

*Keep meets WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think this is legally recognized? MB 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

See my note below, MB.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable and nothing significant about it. It is just a neighborhood in Glendale, Arizona - Jay (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightburst. It doesn't have much info (and Phoenix, Arizona, doesn't even mention it), but the US Geological Survey recognizes it and Wikipedia is also a gazetteer. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. While I agree with the good faith of the nom, it is notable as per WP:GEOLAND since it is officially recognized by the USGS as a populated place. I also find it interesting to Whjayg pipe in here, since they have so many AfD contributions. Could it be that this is the start of some WP:HOUNDING, since we had a disagreement over two articles they created? Might I suggest it be nipped in the bud.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The verbiage in Geoland refers to "legally recognized" populated places, not "officially recognized". Being mentioned by the USGS in a directory of all place names in the country does not confer "legal status". This is just a neighborhood (actually just a housing development named by the original builder), one of thousands in the city that are similarly non-notable. The nature of this "populated place" clearly fits within the second bullet of Geoland - "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments". A further note is that this "name" got picked up by the GNIS only because it was first listed in "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." per the citation in GNIS. Whatever this guidebook was (I can find no mention of it anywhere except that one GNIS citation) is a tenuous basis for "legal recognition" MB 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Being recognized by the federal government meets WP:GEOLAND.11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND Smartyllama (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, also, NeighborhoodScout has some info including "Most neighborhoods are composed of a mixture of ages of homes, but the Autumn Ridge / Dunhill Place stands out as rather unique in having nearly all of its residential real estate built in one time period, namely between 1970 and 1999, generally considered to be established, but not old housing." that could be incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That should definitely not be added to the article as it is machine-generated gibberish. Most neighborhoods in the greater Phoenix area are built over a few years by one developer. Autumn Ridge is NOT unique at all. MB 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NeighborhoodScout also appears only to auto-generate statistics from certain census tracts and isn't an WP:RS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Coolabahapple, NS uses census tables to automatically generate pages for each of the 74,134 census tracts in the country, in this case Census Tract 618100. GEOLAND specifically says "One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." It also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." This census tract is NOT the same as Autumn Ridge. Where are the sources about the subdivision itself that are written by humans? Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks everybody, i am duly chastised and have deleted my "keep". :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, per User:MB's nomination and sensible responses, esp. including that GNIS mention ("mention by the federal government") absolutely does NOT establish a legal entity. It is apparently just a housing development sometimes termed a neighborhood by random realtors. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Further to that point, the GNIS entry literally states that Autumn Ridge is "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. (emphasis added).

User:SportingFlyer's comment below clarifies for me that the type of populated places we want to cover are the current or former unincorporated communities/settlements out there, that might be ghost towns now or in the future, that generally don't have exact boundaries. Not just any subsection of an urban or suburban fully developed area that someone can define/coin. We do cover "neighborhoods" sometimes, such as those covered in Neighborhoods in Boston, which starts off with a list of 23 official, meaningful neighborhoods used in planning and in delivery of city services, and goes on to mention overlapping other neighborhoods. If wp:GNG is met about an unofficial area that overlaps official ones, or otherwise does not coincide with any legal entity, then fine, we can cover it. But not any and every housing development or mini-neighborhood or maxi-neighborhood name that is coined by random people. We don't want to cover an area entirely within legal/known larger populated places, which has meaning only the eyes of a realtor trying to make an area sound good, and wanting it to be new and distinctive perhaps so they can say they are the only realtor supposedly specializing in that area, in order to try to drum up business for themselves. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is not actually a "populated place" per our Wikipedia guidelines. The GNIS notes: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." (emphasis mine) It appears to be a subdevelopment, wholly within an already legally populated place, which has a USGS database entry for some reason. Other similar entries include Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona - there are 867 in total of which 25% are mobile home parks, so it is not as if the database is capturing unincorporated towns, and the two most recent non-mobile trailer park additions are not cities but subdevelopments, suggesting we cannot use this dataset in good faith with WP:GEOLAND, which is meant to identify populated places. The three kickers for me: 1) this place has no legally recognised census count, 2) this place is wholly located within a legally recognised place and 3) this place definitively fails WP:GNG. The WP:GNG is important here because nobody recognises this place as a place except for the USGS, and while every distinct housing subdevelopment in Phoenix typically receives its own name. Since WP:GEOLAND only creates a presumption of notability, albeit a very strong presumption as we are a gazetteer, this is a good example of a place which we do not need to have an entry for. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I also did a newspapers.com search in Arizona. The only thing I could find was this advertisement for a subdevelopment: [44] (ran on multiple days but only giving you this one.) Other coverage was for apartments with the same name in different areas than the subdevelopment. My speculation: this development was originally built on unincorporated land and then later annexed into Glendale, but I have absolutely nothing to prove that. I don't think the spirit of WP:GEOLAND extends to defining housing developments as a "populated place," it's loose because we want to include any town, city, or village regardless of their levels of coverage, and this is none of those things. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked up this subdivision in the Maricopa County GIS and found a 1982 aerial photo with four homes built. This matches the time-frame of the 1983 advertisement above. The plat information says this is a subdivision of 97 lots/homes. This is in Phoenix (although the mailing address is Glendale). I couldn't find a historical boundary map to show it was county land at the time, but I think SportingFlyer is correct that it was unincorporated and later annexed into (Phoenix). I also found that there is also an Autumn Ridge-2 subdivision just down the street in Glendale with 220 lots. MB 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete GNIS/USGS is NOT "legal recognition", it is a database of names that have appeared on maps. NGEO "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." How is a database of names on maps any different from the map itself? This is clearly a subdivision that falls under "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc". The subdivision is located in incorporated Deer Valley, Arizona: THAT is the legally recognized place, not these streets that make up half of Census Tract 618100. There are not sources that establish notability of this place. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO as set out by above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This area must meet the higher bar of GEOLAND #2. …subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And because sources do not exist to pass GNG required by GEOLAND #2, this article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Most probably a product of WP:COI, an article about just another TV show that exists.

I am aware a few of the editors would cite WP:TVSERIES without much thought and/or explanation. It says: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It also says: [...] however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.

The TV show in discussion hasnt been reviewed by any well known/notable critic. It hasnt won any awards. It hasnt received significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage I could find is from press releases, noticeable paid articles, primary sources, and gossip/telly sites. Nothing in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the series status of TVSERIES is doubtful. The two networks it appears on accord to the article seem to have limited distribution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

John Thomas (political strategist)

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

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

Article about a political pundit, who has been interviewed for opinions a few times but doesn't seem to have anyone actually taken an interest in him enough to meet our threshold for inclusion as per WP:GNG. The original article was a redirect to John Addison Thomas I have no opposition to it being reverted back to that. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't have much meaningful coverage for a political pundit/strategist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dreamworld Resort

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dreamworld Resort
• Articles for deletion/Dreamworld Resort (2nd nomination)

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

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

previously deleted article, sources provided do not address topic in detail, merely mention it as being host of some wrestling matches. Much of text is lifted from organisations website (dreamworld.pk) Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Don't see much in way to make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks coverage from reliable third party sources. One of their sources is a facebook post. Sonstephen0 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another non-notable article created by the same user that keeps getting deleted. A warning my be needed for this user as well... - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Article has not been discussed extensively in reliable sources, until then, my vote is for delete. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 19 November 2019 (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 merge to Yandex Maps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yandex.Map editor

Yandex.Map editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This website exists, but what makes it notable? While input from a Russian-speaking editor would be nice, this needs to pass WP:GNG if not Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and neither the sources in the article nor the ones I can see seems to be go beyond primary/press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Yandex Maps, the parent website. This is just a crowdsourced data interface for the Yandex maps site, not a standalone website. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yandex Maps, the parent website. Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Googlepedia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Googlepedia
• Articles for deletion/Googlepedia (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Googlepedia (3rd nomination)

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

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

Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep (snow) It was already clear at the last AfD that there's at least four sources WP:Articles for deletion/Googlepedia (2nd nomination). That passes WP:GNG, so did the nom even check that? Widefox; talk 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete In point of fact, the 4 references cited in the 2nd nomination are (in order):404, one paragraph in a listicle, also 404, a very short Washington Post article that barely goes beyond "this exists". References have to be WP:V to contribute to GNG. A broken browser extension that ended support nine years ago has a hard time establishing notability even given WP:NOTTEMPORARY and this one doesn't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete easy close needs better references. Not sure if this is even worth having a page on DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. Consensus that sufficient sourcing exists to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Divorce

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

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

Non-notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The band name makes it difficult to find sources, but the AllMusic refs are all I could find as well. Any charting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Lolol "SHiPS has not released a full-length album yet, but a 5-song EP is available for purchase on their MySpace page for $5." I found some routine local coverage of when they played in local venues [45], but WP:AUD applies. Albums release on a non-notable label is not enough for notability. Also recommend deleting The Gifted Program. Reywas92^Talk 08:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know who Ships are but The Divorce have released two full length albums and WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations not music groups, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I'm acknowledging my conflict of interest as member of the band and a subject of this article. I'm not super-clear how to engage in this, but I've updated the page to more-extensively cite sources, as well as call out the associations with more-notable international acts in order to better comply with WP:AUD. Paleblinds (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep has reliable sources coverage including AllMusic bio and review, coverage in The Stranger (newspaper) and The Seattle Times added to the article since it was listed so passes WP:GNG, imv. Also, the album pages can be redirected if not notable, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • AllMusic bio: [46] and review of their albums there [47] and [48]. Local coverage in The Stranger ([49][50], short entry not listed) and Seattle Times: [51]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per the rationale of Atlantic306. Passes WP:GNG Non-trivial coverage. WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• KEEP There are reliable sources in article for establishing notability of subject. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Roadbuster

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

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable Transformers cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More than WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE is needed to judge consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft. Redirect to a related Transformers page, there's not enough non-action figure description to warrant a page specifically for Roadbuster. --Hog Farm (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Taking a look at the sources: The first by "Phillip M. Gervais" leads to a fan forum which does not appear to be vetted, the second source seems more reliable although I can find no in depth detail about the author [52], the third source by "Mark Bellomo" is reliable, the 4th source is a patent (unrelated?), sources 5, 7, and 8 link to the same fan forum as source 1, and source 6 leads to a toy website. If anything I would merge the info cited by Mark Bellomo somewhere and toss the rest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2019 (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 delete. Consensus that insufficient sources (that are both reliable & independent) exist to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanos Dimadis

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

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

It seems that it does not meet WP:GNG. Most sources are brief biographies from RS that give some bites of info on the author of an article. What is needed for an article to meet GNG are the article of RS to discuss the life, career or achievement of the a person. Cinadon36 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Yeah I think it should be deleted, a quick Google Search about him (excluding Wikipedia, Twitter, and his own websites) gives results that are mostly bios on news websites, and not notable enough. Also he recently used Wikipedia on his twitter to "prove" his educational credentials, which seems fishy to me since this entire article is written as an advertisement. --Michail (blah) 17:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. To repeat my comment on the article talk page, I can see citations to articles written by the subject himself, or to others that mention him as the author of an article or an interviewer, but nothing that is actually about Dimades, and I can find no such sources myself. It would appear that the authors of the article have done their best to find sources that would contribute towards notability, but have come up with none, so I can only conclude that he is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another article about a non-notable "political analyst/strategist" with heavy COI editing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per rationale provided by @Cinadon36:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hideous Records

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

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Redirect to Reuben (band). Per WP:NCOMPANY the record label received no significant media coverage as a company in its own right, and can probably be considered a simple vanity imprint for the band to release its own records. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 12 November 2019 (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 keep. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cooltempo Records

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

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The article currently has no sources but the record label has received some minor media notice that may qualify for a stub article under WP:NCOMPANY. The label has earned a certain "cult" status and its recent resurrection earned a little media notice: [53], [54]. However I would not dispute any calls for more evidence of notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: this was a really well known label on the British music scene during the 1980s and 1990s, licensing many of the early US hip hop and electro/house singles for release in the UK, as well as developing homegrown R&B acts. Many of its singles and albums made the top ten in the UK, and it's certainly had in-depth coverage in Billboard for starters: [55], [56]. The label had its own distinct identity and as a result I would expect further print coverage in UK magazines like Music Week. Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with @Doomsdayer520:, certainly needs references but label has enough notability and coverage. Rocktober2018 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DOOMSDAYER520 . NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Agreement that neither NPOL or NSPORTS is met as both are student positions Nosebagbear (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ashish Lamba

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a student politician. As for the "international hockey player" part, he has not played professionally or for his national team and has only played on for the University of Dehli. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Student government is not a level of political office that passes WP:NPOL, but nothing here constitutes evidence that he's notable for other reasons independently of having a non-notable job. What is it, exactly, about Indian student union members that makes so many Indian editors think they belong in an international encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete being a member of student government does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Does not look notable to me. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal

Jamia Islamia Bhatkal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable madrasa. Seems promotional and No WP:RS. Kutyava (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as no RS can be found, notability in question.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, notability is iffy, but I have found some sources [57], [58], [59]. Willing to vote the other way on this one, but I feel like the GNG requirements are just met. Utopes (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd love to discuss the sources that I provided on the 27th now that I've been away long enough to have a refreshed take. Utopes (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems like a institution that is organized and celebrated its 50th anniversary. Notice coverage in a reliable source like the Hindu. Lot of ccoverage on Bhatkallys.com which appears to be a polished portal covering local and regional news. Coverage on Daijiworld as well of an internationl event they ran. This is one of many articles. This was pointed out by Utopes too. Regional Karnataka always has challenges in getting coverage in what we consider mainstream newspapers. As an editor who also covers Karnataka topics, I often fall back on portals like Daijiworld to look for coverage on topics related to regional Karnataka. So in summary my take is Keep! Arunram (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm in similar mind to @Arunram. صدیق صبري (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kutyava (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2019 (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 redirect to Doctor Psycho. RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Captain Wonder (DC Comics)

Captain Wonder (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional character. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Doctor Psycho. This is just an alternate form/identity that Doctor Psycho briefly took, and is already described fully in his article. There is absolutely no reason for this the be WP:SPLIT from that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect, sure)--I can find no proper out of universe sourcing for this character. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cannon (Wildstorm)

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

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Like 1000 other fancruft minor comic book characters, not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - there's a possible redirect target (List of Stormwatch members), but I believe anyone knowledgeable enough about the subject to search for this character can find that list. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2019 (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 redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies#Other recurring antagonists. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Lord Conquest

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Like 1000 other fancruft minor comic book characters, not notable. Might warrant a merge to some list of recurring Wonder Woman characters or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. It already contains a minimum of information. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2019 (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 delete. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Kapoor Watch Company

Kapoor Watch Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sourcing that demonstrates significant coverage. Can't find any significant coverage myself, and doubt it exists for a watch retailer. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Tell Rifaat clashes

2019 Tell Rifaat clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very minor/insignificant clash rather than a battle, and a part of Operation Olive Branch. Recommend that it be merged and later deleted. KasimMejia (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Article size, Operation Olive Branch is already very large and already over 100 kb, and this article has enough sources to establish notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - "Very minor" according to who? Besides, Operation Olive Branch sorely needs more sub-articles like this one. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The deletion reason (and discussion) seems to be whether it's a legitimate content fork
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

*Delete/Merge This was a small clash as part of the larger Operation Olive Branch that resulted in 3 villages changing hands back and forth in one day. Having a separate article for insignificant clashes like these in the Syrian Civil War does not improve readability WP:CONTENTFORK. KasimMejia (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Self Comment Another thing to note, the article was created immediately when the clash began and 3 villages were captured. The creator fell into WP:TOOSOON thinking the offensive would result in a large battle WP:CBALL. KasimMejia (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep notable and because of Wikipedia:Article size, Operation Olive Branch is already unwieldy it is a poor idea to merge. Wm335td (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep There are RS to treat this as a separate article. The connection between the articles should be made clearer here, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 19 November 2019 (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 no consensus. After two re-lists, there was no consensus to Delete, and a leaning to Keep; although a concern about the weakness of RS. No prejudice to a future re-list (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Kid Buu (rapper)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kid Buu (rapper)
• Articles for deletion/Kid Buu (rapper) (2nd nomination)

Kid Buu (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing seems to have changed since the last AFD. None of the sources seem to really cover the musician in depth. Majority of the sources are about him dating a famous person. Fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this atrocity. There is no notability here. Trillfendi (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is quite a well known person. There are literally 5 pages of articles on google news about him [60]. I imagine atleast 3-4 of the like 80 articles on him would be eligible to let him pass WP:GNG. This isn't some unknown artist, this is a rapper who regularly gets millions of hits on his stuff and used to date a Kardashian. Weak because I didn't do any digging into articles. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlessandroTiandelli333: Being "well known" has nothing to do with Notability and can you please back your vote by providing the sources that make him pass GNG. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep while the Hollywood Life, XXL (magazine), Yahoo! Entertainment articles discuss an incident they do discuss the musician's career/character.Djflem (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete There is not enough sources from hip hop related articles for this rapper. Most sources are Soundcloud songs, spotify, and YouTube video. Proudpakistani11 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I've used the article about him in Hollywood Life as a source in another article, and as pointed out above there are clearly multiple reliable and verifiable sources that are clearly about him to establish notability. The fact that many of the sources are links to songs or videos is irrelevant; the sources about him are what establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep even though I never heard of him, People did. If only he could get in a few more scrapes we could get more SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that is leaning to Keep since first re-list; try one more re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BASIC if many reliable in-depth sources aren’t provided but subject has received multiple independent coverage (which subject of our discussion has received) then I believe by that guideline article shouldn’t be deleted. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - this rapper is notable. I do not seem to understand why rappers have a harder time on Wikipedia than mainstream rock guitarists. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2019 (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Erik Arvinder

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Erik Arvinder
• Articles for deletion/Erik Arvinder (2nd nomination)

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

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

UPE from indeffed editor. Non notable studio musician/arranger. Has worked with a lot of artists but notability is not inherited from them. Lots of credits but primarily as a session player, none saying notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep You nominated this before already, it got relisted twice, and closed on 4 July 2019. Now you are trying again? Anyway, the Google news search results are mostly not in English. The Quietus is a reliable source and comments on him and his work at [61]. A musician is known for their work, and that many famous people wouldn't work with him for notable albums unless he was quite skilled. His work is part of something notable, so that makes him notable under the subject specific guidelines for musicians. WP:NMUSIC Dream Focus 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Was nominated and kept as late as July this year. And already re-nominated. Still reliable sources and passes WP:GNG per work in music as per previous AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep My !vote is the same now as it was then. The article is referenced with non-trivial coverage and the subject has achieved notability in his field. Regarding the "UPE" it is troubling, but does not diminish the notability of this person. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oh look. The advertisement rescue squad has been canvassed. At least Dream Focus has supplied us with a good source. Not like the other two vague waves. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I couldn't be bothered to reinvestigate since I just did so this about 5 months ago. The second AfD gave me the WP:NOTAGAIN feeling. This time I put the article on the ARS list in hopes that someone there could find something more. I am sorry that you are bothered by that. I hope that the diligence of Dream Focus can allay your suspicions about canvassing. DF was not involved in the last AfD you placed on this article, and as such they did their own checking. Perhaps I will work on the article a bit more. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I want to see good diffs of me and Lightburst being canvassed to come here and !vote. Otherwise I will consider it meaningless slander. We both know that you will not provide any such diffs, so please think twice before making these kind of accusations in the future.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Arvinder is a perennial journeyman and sideman, and most of his notice is in relation to the people he has collaborated with, but the other voters in this and the previous nomination have found some reliable sources (such as Quietus) that might justify a stub article. This one needs to be cleaned up with unreliable sources removed, but that is a different process. Also, a nominator who throws accusations at voters with whom he disagrees should deliver the same level of evidence that he demands from everyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - journeyman musician, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Regarding canvassing. It's obvious, since not a single person who belongs to the "rescue squad" has made a meaningful contribution to the article in an effort to show notability. Rather, after posting on that page, they simply came here to !vote. That's pretty much the definition of canvassing. That being said, I would not include BabbaQ, since I don't believe they are part of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Onel5969:. I did do my dilligent before search to confirm the many references in the article. And !voted June 2019. So I felt the same as I did then. Regarding canvassing, I only see two ARS members here, and I am one. Many times the members have other interests. in any event, the other member did research posted above. And meanwhile here is a video of the subject demonstrating his virtuosity. i am beginning cleanup. Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Not all musicians are notable. I don't think he is composing his own music or such, he just works for orchestras/etc. No awards. No reviews of his work. No in-depth coverage. What makes him notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The sourcing is somewhat weaker than I would have preferred – true also for the sentences I've added – but to say he just works for orchestras makes it sound like what he does is less important than it is. Making an arrangement for an orchestra is a creative endeavour akin to composing. (In addition to his supporting roles for television, other musicians and so on.) /Julle (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why relist this AfD when a clear consensus for Keep is there. Anyways, stand by my Keep !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Several nice credits? Yes. Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? No, not seeing this at all. A little bit in the Quietus source, but that leaves a ways to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 17 November 2019 (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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hexany Audio

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio
• Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio (2nd nomination)

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

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

UPE from indeffed editor, blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. In the first AfD User:HighKing goes into greater details about the failings of the sourcing.
Since the last AfD Keep !voters User:Germcrow, User:Laosilika, User:Benleg4000, User:ParinazF, User:Sora Sailor, User:OliverKianzo, User:Nubtrazolacine have all been indeffed as upe, spam/advertising only and/or sock accounts. Also also blocked is User:Mister305akamisterworldwide and User:PANGIfroth who edited/requested edits the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Just like the last time, I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Interesting to see that of the 9 editors that !voted to Keep at the previous AfD, *8* have since been blocked for promotion/spam/etc. From the previous AfD:
• There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
  • This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself.
  • This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.
  • This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
  • This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions the company twice, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is not inherited. It also contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The Cultured Vultures reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information about the company.
  • This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I mentioned in the deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) that I couldn't see the value in having separate articles for both Mr. Ludlow and Hexany Audio, as their notability is intertwined – the Boston Globe source is also in Mr. Ludlow's article, as well as the Forbes interview and another piece from the Orange County Register. These seem to be the only reliable sources in both articles, so either merge them into one article or delete one (or both). Richard3120 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep If the article is promotional we can fix that (WP:NOTCLEANUP). I see notability in the links provided in the last AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I also participated in the discussion for deletion discussion for Richard Ludlow (this company's founder) "passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions." I can circle back and reconsider after I see what other editors can find. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The article wasn't only nominated because it was promotional - it needs multiple references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The Boston Globe article [62] counts towards notability as does the one on Gamecrate [63] which is about the company, not the guy running it. So the General Notability Guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 09:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The [64] Boston Globe] article relies entirely on quotations from their founder so therefore it is not Independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Nor is it significant coverage about the company. Nor does it provide any in-depth coverage on the company. The GameCrate reference is an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND. Neither of those references contain "Independent Content" so both fail GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Coverage is fleeting and does not include the serious in-depth content we would expect. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2019 (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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Standard (unit)

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

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

This unit of measurement probably doesn't exist. Of the three sources currently in the article, the third doesn't mention the subject, the second uses the word "standard" as an adjective while talking about something else, and the first is a book full of sloppy errors and hilarious misreadings. I did a search and can find no indication that this ever existed. Reyk _YO! 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment as a search term, it's an arsehole to search for though. ——SN54129 15:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh yes. But being able to combine it with "Pittsburgh" and "firewood" helped. I'm pretty confident that I didn't just get buried in a mountain of false positives. Reyk _YO! 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge into Petrograd Standard which is the same thing and certainly existed as a common measure of timber in places like Britain. Petrograd is another name for St. Petersburg. It's not clear how Pittsburg comes into this and it's probably just a misprint or misreading of Petersburg. Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain which information from this page you would add to Petrograd Standard? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have expanded the article to explain the matter more fully and so have revised my !vote to that below. As the Petrograd standard was one of many such standards, any merger should be into this page, as it is more general. I find that the Pittsburgh reference is in multiple sources and so we should retain this aspect pending further investigation. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: it's an even worse attempt to describe the "Petrograd standard" than Petrograd Standard (which is pretty dreadful). Imaginatorium (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• • It's a perfect exemplar of Cardarelli incompetence: the ridiculous excessive decimal digits, the misreading of simple words (Petrograd v Pittsburgh), the confusion about what's actually being measured (firewood or construction timber?), and the misreading of an adjectival qualifier as a proper name. Although, to be fair, the person responsible for some of these incomprehensions might be Shevonsilva rather than Cardarelli. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything worth merging to any existing article, given the doubtful quality of the sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Add: note that the single source at Petrograd Standard has only this to say on the general unit: The units of measurement are called "Standards" and there is little resemblance between the different "standards". Fittingly, what is presented here as the standard appears to be a specific one (Pittsburgh), and in that capacity is too badly sourced (as noted above). Delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC))

Wavering... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, settling for Keep now. The "standard vs "standard hundred" issue still looks a little unclear, but that's more of a title problem, if it is one. IMO article content and sourcing are good enough for tenure now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: having performed my own WP:BEFORE, I agree with them that once the search paraeters are clearly defined, there's nothng in the literature suggesting notability. ——SN54129 21:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable as real. Also, pretty much an orphan. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Presumably someone somewhere said "standard" instead of "standard cord" but that is very dubious. As explained many times before, the Cardarelli ref is an indiscriminate grab of all possible words and is not reliable. The other two refs fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I have expanded the article using a variety of sources which seem to have eluded all the nay-sayers above. Their !votes are all now obsolete and the validity of the topic is adequately verified. I have browsed numerous other sources in the course of this and there seems to be more to be said about the standards which applied in other parts which have yet to be covered, such as the timber producing areas of Canada. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE and WP:STICK. Andrew D. (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The added text and refs continue the misunderstanding of standard. Here is the text from The Dictionary of Trade Products, Manufacturing, and Technical Terms, p. 358]:

    Standard, an upright of iron, for fencing; a flag; a test or rule of measure; a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries. The St. Petersburg standard hundred of deals, and deal ends, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 1½ inch thick, and 11 inches broad, = 165 cubic feet. The Swedish standard hundred contains 121 pieces, 14 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The Norwegian standard hundred contains 120 pieces 12 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 9 inches broad. The standard hundred by which battens are commonly sold, contains 120 pieces, 12 feet long, 2½ inches thick, and 7 inches broad. Dantzic and Memel deck deals are sold by a standard of 40 feet long, 3 inches thick, and 12 inches wide. The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons, and that of white wood 2½ tons. The term standard is used to designate the purity and weight of coins, that is, [...more information on standard coins not shown; the text omitted is twice the size of the text shown...]

That discusses what was used as a standard for trading certain goods. No one called a timber yard and said "I want a standard". The text refers to a standard hundred—I'm not sure what that refers to, perhaps something like a hundredweight? There is no such thing as a standard as portrayed in the article which is perpetuating a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well. Much as I dislike Andrew's rote recitation of policy buzzwords and the inevitable flagging-over of that little canvassing club - but the quoted text actually makes a rather good case for "standard" constituting a measurement unit (or term for such) on its own. Standard, [...] a solid measure by which hewn timber is estimated, varying in different timber countries - that's a separate thing, not a modifier for "hundredweight" or something like that. Later use in the same passage (The standard of red deals would weigh about 2¾ tons) seems to bear that out. I can't check the other sources, but if they show the same usage, then that would seem adequate sourcing to me. - In which case Petrograd Standard should be merged here, as suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge Petrograd Standard into this article then, as redundant and integrally within its scope. Reywas92^Talk 02:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment- the attempted rewrite simply perpetuates the misuse of the adjective "Standard" as a proper name. Adding some pictures of ships doesn't change that, nor obsolete anyone's vote. As pointed out by Johnuniq, nobody is going to call a timber yard or write to St Petersburg and say "I'd like a standard please" and claiming otherwise is faintly misleading. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• The OED confirms the usage as "A definite quantity of timber, differing in different countries" and gives examples of usage including: "A ‘Petersburgh Standard’ ... consists of 120 deals of 12 feet long by 11 inches wide and 1½ inch thick. [This = 165 cubic feet.]" (1864 Daily Telegraph); "The vessel contained about 1000 standards ... A standard was 165 cubic feet of timber." (1891 Law Times). Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - added a couple of refs and here are additional ones.[65][66] Merge Petrograd, and maybe remove the 17th century ship (was the term used then?). StrayBolt (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Evidence has been found proving this is a real thing. I agree that Petrograd Standard should be merged into this article. Dream Focus 11:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't yet had time to evaluate all the sources (I removed one for being unreliable and another for recycling the unreliable), but if this page is kept, it should be renamed to something like standard (timber unit). The less specific name is a touch confusing to read, being too close to Standard units. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I also had trouble with the title and would be open to that or maybe standard hundred (unit). I'm seeing some variation in the sizes which I don't know if they are errors or changes over time. StrayBolt (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Reams of sources, binder-fulls of sources, entire standards of sources. Archive.org trumps Google Books :) At least on older topics. I added one particularly useful source, but there are many more. OK with renaming it a lumber term, what it is. -- GreenC 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew D's commentaries. Though the title requires a qualifier? A history section is probably needed to explain its influence in the movement to standardize units in the first place. Also it should be echoed in Standard units; which should still be a disambiguation page IMO. Broichmore (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, Interesting topic , useful information although needs more RS. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment, Here is "standard hundred" usage in Google Books with a peak around 1880.[67] StrayBolt (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The unit clearly does exist, contrary to the allegation in the nom. The page has been significantly improved since nomination; Cardarelli is no longer a ref and his overprecision and possible inaccuracies have been excised from the article. That appears to have been the main cause for the nomination in the first place, but that rationale is now moot. SpinningSpark 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Though no longer in use, it is historic. Peter Horn User talk 17:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Standard (timber unit). Also Petrograd Standard should be merged into this one as a parent term with better sourcing. The sources hat have been added since nomination demonstrate WP:GNG compliance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per above. The article provides useful historical information. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2019 (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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 06:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry

Florida State–Virginia football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's hard to see how a rivalry can be notable if the best source describes it with quotes such as "I wouldn't say this is a big rival game for us" or "This has developed into a rivalry now on the basis of one game, I guess" Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I've cited sources from both the University of Virginia and Florida State University, confirming that it's a rivalry, as well as an independent book about college football rivalries that it is indeed one. The quote above is from one person back in 1993 giving his opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete one of the sources cited in the article actually has Bobby Bowden stating "You can talk about being a rival with someone, but it's not a true rivalry until both teams win a game." I bow to the great Bobby Bowden and say that if he says one game is not a rivalry, then it isn't a rivalry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Bobby Bowden was actually saying it is a rivalry, to be fair. Both teams had won a game when he made that statement. Virginia was in fact the only conference team that had won a game against FSU at that time. George Welsh was the (Virginia) coach who said he didn't put much stock into one game (the opposite of what Bowden was saying). But I think this article is better served as focusing on the trophy than on the "rivalry" per se as the game is no longer regularly contested and was never more than a very small rivalry dreamt up by Bowden and the FSU president at the time. Omnibus (talk)
  • Again, that quote was from over 25 years ago. Things have changed since then and I'm sure his opinion has since changed. (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Can you show any evidence that his opinion has changed?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The burden is not on me to show that his opinion changed. The point I was making is that the coach's opinion is not fact and thus should not be counted in this discussion. The fact is that both schools (ie administration and athletics) acknowledge this series as a rivalry and that I've provided proof for.
        • Ummm… yeah it is. If you're going to hold the position that an expert on college football like Bobby Bowden has changed his opinion that has been stated and published, then you need to provide some kind of evidence beyond your belief "that was 25 years ago so it might have changed."--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia does not work on opinion, it works on facts. The fact is that there is documented evidence that it's a rivalry game. What a coach, any coach, said about a rivalry at it's inception does not count as fact nor citation. You can cite that he said that at the start, but it does not disprove that it's a rivalry now. But again, my point is that his quote does not count as being evidence that it's not a rivalry. I've proven, by Wiki standards, that this game is a rivalry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Perhaps the closing admin will agree with you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete seems like a case of WP:NOT. Will we be creating articles about all sports rivalries? Isn't every game a rivalry in some way? It just does not seem encyclopedic to document such things. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. On the fence for now, but here is some additional coverage discussing this as a rivalry, much of it focused on the trophy: this, pt 1, this, pt 2, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It may be a rivalry in the future, but as of now they have only played two games and they are 27 years apart.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul -- I don't think that is correct (that they only played twice). I'm not opining that it meets GNG, but they have played each other at least 19 times: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2019. Cbl62 (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I say we send the article to draft until it reflects more accurately the situation. As it stands now, the article status and "reality" seem too diverse for a concrete discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rick lay95: Paul's suggestion to draftify seems reasonable. There's likely enough there to pass WP:GNG, but the article as it currently exists is a sub-stub that does not remotely capture the scope of the series. Draftifying will allow you to work on the article until it is ready for prime time. Sound ok? Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What if we turned this into an article about the trophy? The rivalry's not notable and should be deleted, the trophy might be notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Another reasonable suggestion. And one that has precedent where the history of the trophy is the focus rather than the games themselves. Compare Illibuck Trophy, Little Brown Jug, Nickel Trophy, Sitting Bull Trophy. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, so my vote is to rename (have fun with that, AfD Stats parser!) to Jefferson–Eppes Trophy. SportingFlyer T·C 05:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with rename as the rivalry itself is not notable. The trophy may not be either, but I'd be interested to see if someone can make it work. Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Cbl62's nine citations. At minimum, "Jefferson–Eppes Trophy" passes GNG for Category:College football rivalry trophies in the United States (Beehive Boot, Cajun Crown, etc). The only question is whether to present this as a "trophy" or "rivalry" article in the lede (see above cat re same). Either way, the rest of the article would be nearly identical. CFB project is capable of addressing the two options post-AfD. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The very existence of a trophy makes the trophy notable enough for Wikipedia, in other words? That doesn't seem like it could be a correct assumption, but maybe it is. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

* Delete as in time at both universities I never experienced a single person who thought this was a "rivalry game" in any sense of the phrase. It's played every five or six years and the only basis for being a rivalry game is that a trophy was once made up after UVA upset FSU and finally someone (didn't matter who) had beaten the 'Noles in the ACC. After Miami joined the conference, no one has ever pretended this is a rivalry game at all... and really, no one ever did before that point either that I'm aware of. On the other hand, the trophy was made at some point though I'm not totally sure it exchanges hands or has been seen since. As per above, I also vote to rename the article to Jefferson–Eppes Trophy and focus on those much older ties between the universities instead of trying to make a rivalry game out of a sporadically played game that has never really been a rivalry. Every single source as a "rivalry" is basically tongue-in-cheek... "although it's not a big rivalry" ... "it's a rivalry based on one game, I guess" ... and so forth. The trophy article might be a more earnest attempt at an encyclopedic article here. Omnibus (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• With a rename to the trophy I could revisit my Delete vote. As it is, I see no encyclopedic value to this rivalry article. Voting on the present AfD it is a strong delete for me. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I really don't love this article (it appears to be a candidate for politics-inspired vandalism and edit warring considering the apparent ongoing controversy surrounding the the trophy's namesake at FSU), but the trophy itself appears to pass WP:GNG, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - these are large football teams and the rivalry is not trivial MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. The sources provided by those voting to keep the article seem to have been convincingly invalidated by the delete voters. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Recovery Centers of America

Recovery Centers of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable firm. Almost all the references are local notice/PR, generally in connection with the opening of a new center. This is no longer acceptable sourcing, according to WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, check the sources I listed here and tell if these sources are acceptable per WP:NCORP. --Madhaberisl (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. All of the references are to opening of small addiction centers. There's no evidence that any of the centers exceed 209 beds, the standard mid-level assisted living facility size in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  There are many sources which discusses about the subject. Please check Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, US News, TechCrunch and more available on Google search pages. Madhaberisl (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Also, according to this source[68], the center has 253 beds. Madhaberisl (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep WP:PRESERVE per the Non-trivial WP:SIGCOV. Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Business Journals, Courier-Post. looks like an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are churnalism. The Philadelphia Inquirer reference even states it got information from the company website and from what the company said. Fails WP:ORGIND. The Philadelphia Business Journals reference is based on this prior company announcement and uses similar information and quotes as other articles such as this from the Courier Post, fails WP:ORGIND. The final reference from Courier Post is similarly based on Company PR and similar announcements, totally fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable run of the mill organisation that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. GSS ^💬 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and close: There is certainly in-depth WP:RS available for company, where the news is written by staff and not any contributors. This news from Philadelphia Business Journals is alone enough to pass WP:GNG, there are enough other sources that needs to be Googled. Very clearly pass notability. Meeanaya (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Meeanaya: Please see these examples of trivial coverage. DGG do we consider BizJournals a reliable source? Don't they mostly write based on press releases. I found this thread (there is a few more) and it was mentioned as non-rs. GSS ^💬 05:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

BizJournals contain almost exclusively press releases, and local press releases at that--including it at all is usually an admission that no RS exist, or that the contributor can't tell the difference. To prove this for yourself, read them. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Found it, looks like it was taken from this press release published by businesswire.com the same day, but a few hours before it appeared on BizJournals. The same article was available on their official website as well, that has been removed, but one can easily see on Google. GSS ^💬 07:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom, Fails WP:NCORP. The subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have become more diverse since the first re-list; try a second re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Please check significant coverage in Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, US News, TechCrunch etc. Madhaberisl (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Madhaberisl (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

  Let's see. The Washington Examiner reference contains no in-depth information on the company, and includes "quotations" from the CSO, the CEO of the rehab facility and a patient. This reference has no Independent Content and fails the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND. This from the Wall Street Journal is based on a "news release" (says it in the opening sentence) and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This from US News is a mere single mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from TechCrunch is also a mere single mention-in-passing with no discussion on the company and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  None of these sources give in-depth significant coverage to the subject of this AfD. GSS ^💬 08:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep Rewrite and get rid of the COI issues, and maybe protect it to prevent them from editing their own article. Paid editing and COI problems will need to be cleaned up, but the WSJ and US News press mentions and organization history seem to show that it is just about notable, as it comparable to many other articles in Category:Addiction organizations in the United States. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Ambrosiawater: COI is not the main issue here, the main issue is notability. Can you please explain how WSJ and a passing mention at the US News piece support notability under WP:CORP or WP:SIGCOV? Also, please take a look at these examples of trivial coverage and WP:OTHER. GSS ^💬 08:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - kind of hard to say but this is not really WP:MILL stuff, and other users mention WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. I am noticing some good results like [69] but others are also passing mentions. I think this one passes. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Keet Dailey

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

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

Amateur athlete, no substantive sources, no notable competitions or victories, likely autobiography. Guy (help!) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - when there are sources which have headlines such as ""OSU triathlete sets sights on journey to world championship..." you just know that notability is very thin. In this case it is absent. Fails WP:GNG
• Delete There's no indication he meets the notability criteria for athletes and the coverage, which consists of either local coverage and/or stats is not enough to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - as above editors said MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. Ignoring the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

David Nemer

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/David Nemer
• Articles for deletion/David Nemer (2nd nomination)

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

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

This near-certain autobiography (created by a WP:SPA) appears to fail WP:PROF: early career assistant professor (PhD 2015) with virtually all cited sources being affiliated or primary. The sole genuine claim to notability is one book, Favela Digital. Guy (help!) 09:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON and this looks true here. The citation record isn't enough yet for WP:PROF#C1, and one book with multiple reviews is a good start but not yet enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This looks like one of those cases where the book is more wiki-notable than the author. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. David Nemer has been one of the leading researchers on Misinformation and far-right movements in Brazil. His research has grown beyond the issues related to providing internet access to marginalized communities. He, through his research projects, has promoted impact beyond the academic world and has gained the attention of the general audience. I'm listing here some of the recent articles that involves Nemer:

Articles authored by Nemer

• • The_Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/brazil-president-jair-bolsonaro-whatsapp-fake-news
  • HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-whatsapp_n_5d542b0de4b05fa9df088ccc
  • The_Intercept https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/grupos-pro-bolsonaro-whatsapp-estao-mais-radicais/
  • El_País https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/10/26/opinion/1540565822_010438.html

Interviews with Nemer

• • O_Globo https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/bolsonaristas-pragmaticos-quem-sao-os-eleitores-que-discordam-mas-apoiam-governo-23934903
  • Quartz_(publication) https://qz.com/india/1445013/whatsapp-fake-news-helped-bolsonaro-win-brazil-is-india-next/
  • Universo_Online https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2019/11/04/todo-mundo-fakenews-eleicoes-2020-whatsapp-redes-sociais-david-nemer.htm
  • Diário_de_Notícias https://www.dn.pt/mundo/bolsonaristas-ferrenhos-sao-cada-vez-menos-e-cada-vez-mais-radicais-11252964.html

Articles quoting Nemer

• • CartaCapital https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/evangelho-segundo-os-bolsominions/
  • O_Globo https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/perfis-que-se-comportam-como-robos-ajudam-turbinar-pautas-bolsonaristas-nas-redes-24045039
  • G1_(website) https://g1.globo.com/educacao/guia-de-carreiras/noticia/2019/01/11/o-brasileiro-que-virou-referencia-em-antropologia-da-informatica-nos-eua-para-ter-impacto-maior-no-brasil.ghtml
  • O_Estado_de_S._Paulo https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/leao-bolsonaro-cercado-por-hienas-gera-memes-do-twitter-com-savana-pelucias-e-carluxo-pictures/
  • Universo_Online https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2019/09/19/fake-news-pro-bolsonaro-whatsapp-eleicoes-robos-disparo-em-massa.htm
  • Exame https://exame.abril.com.br/tecnologia/os-3-perfis-de-usuarios-do-whatsapp-que-ajudam-a-eleger-bolsonaro/

The citation record is not a fair metric to decide on one's notability. Although Nemer has a background in Computer Science, his academic research and publications have been in the fields of Science_and_technology_studies and Anthropology, which are part of the humanities. Humanity scholars are known to not be as highly cited as researchers from the natural and hard sciences. As for rewards and notability, Nemer has given two Keynote speeches in 2019, one in Brazil (2019 Brazilian Congress of Librarianship and Documentation), and one in Singapore (Online Falsehoods and Influence Operations Meeting). His paper on the Internet in Cuba just received an honorable mention from 2019 CSCW Computer-supported_cooperative_work: https://medium.com/acm-cscw/announcing-the-best-of-cscw-2019-177d4fe0445c

I'm not sure if this could help endorsing Nemer's notability, but his account on Twitter is verified: https://twitter.com/DavidNemer . According to Twitter: "The blue verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic." https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/twitter-verified-accounts . --J McCal (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — J McCal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete and salt. Totally inadequate academic impact to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
• Keep. David Nemer passes WP:Prof, especially criteria: 1,2,4 & 7. Wikisharktank (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Wikisharktank (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of J McCal (talk • contribs).

1)Exactly how does he pass these criteria? 2) Do you have any connection with the subject that would amount to WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC).

::: No connection, but in the past couple of years, the guy has given invited talks at Harvard, MIT, UC San Diego, University of Oxford, Data & Society, etc... He has written for the Guardian, HuffPost, The Intercept, and is constantly interviewed and quoted in news articles. For a humanities scholar, he is fairly well cited.. how is he not relevant or Wikipedia-relevant? He doesn't fit into the stereotypical white old male scientist. Please, just google his name and do some research. Wikisharktank (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This is absolutely a Keep. On YouTube, you can find Nemer's talks at MIT, Harvard and Oxford. His research has impacted beyond academia. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have any connection with the subject or the socks? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC).

Likely yes, given that they have now been blocked by a checkuser. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is J McCal, for some reason my account got banned from Wikipedia, WTH! Honestly, this is not worth it. Good luck coming up with this sexist and racist conspiracy theory. The comments here are unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.229.79 (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC) —— Striking comment by block evading IP.
• Delete Wikipedia's rules against autobiographies need to be actually enforced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 05:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

City Model School, Zafarwal

City Model School, Zafarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (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 speedy keep. Withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Grammar School Rawalpindi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Grammar School Rawalpindi
• Articles for deletion/Grammar School Rawalpindi (2nd nomination)

Grammar School Rawalpindi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Like most high schools, there is likely to be sufficient coverage per WP:NEXIST, with a brief search I found [70] and [71].----Pontificalibus 15:38, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 05:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz

Monika Gabriela Bartoszewicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to fail WP:PROF, with all cited sources being primary or affiliated. Google seems not to suggest anything substantial about the subject, h-index of 3 and i10-index of 1, total 31 citations since 2014. As far as I can tell she's an early career researcher, and this is WP:TOOSOON by some margin. Article by WP:SPA, Google indicates possible COI. Guy (help!) 09:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Citation counts well below what would be needed for WP:PROF#C1 and one edited volume well below what would be needed for WP:AUTHOR (instead we would need multiple authored and multiply-reviewed books). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this vastly bloated BLP with tiny academic impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
• Weak delete as the nominator said, but I think in the future might be qualified MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 05:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Food and Beverage Technology

Food and Beverage Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't see this having significant coverage. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - WP:A7 or WP:G11. Article was created by WP:SPA dedicated to promoting these "magazines" via spam and similar. Grayfell (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the same spam farm as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine. Grayfell (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - insufficient notability now MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2019 (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 delete . Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine

Manufacturing Technology Insights Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't see this having significant coverage, and already been to draftspace and back already. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious spam with strong signs of paid editing. Arguably meets WP:G11 or WP:A7 for speedy. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the sources are PR. Those are not sources. Does not pass notability standards. Graywalls (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: An article about a recent new magazine, linking to its own site and to a press release about a company receiving an award from the magazine, without evidence of notability. Searches find more of the same; no evidence to indicate that the magazine has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TOOSOON and smells like covert marketing to me. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

----

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Widget (GUI). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Grayed out

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

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

Just a WP:OR dicdef with no reliable sources/notability. The title also fails the criteria of WP:NOUN. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Widget (GUI) – the article fails WP:NOTDICT, and the sources also only provide definitions. I was considering a merge, but there is no content worth merging – it is poorly sourced here and already well-explained in the target article. I don't believe the title should be deleted (hence a redirect) because it averages 50 views/day and still is a common search term; readers looking for information about graying out will find it at the target rather than face a redlink. ComplexRational (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect as above seems like a sensible approach, but in that case I would suggest making sure that the term "greyed out" is actually mentioned at Widget (GUI) - ATM the concept is explained but this particular term is not given. Agree that merging per se is not indicated, there's nothing new here. Maybe bring the Galitz ref along to source the term itself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 18 November 2019 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Katupitiya Walauwa

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

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

Subject is a house in Sri Lanka. Fails GNG and WP:NBUILDING for no independent, reliable sources would be found and nothing remarkable about the house. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks in-depth coverage, trying to search for reliable sources but to no avail, could be proposed to be merged with article Walauwa--Wakowako (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - no source to indicate where actually this house is located and not significant enough to merge into Walauwa for a house CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks any sources or references. I have tried searching but can't find any web-based sources on this building/structure. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - It is a baseless and meaningless article and doesn't have reliable sources to prove the notability. Abishe (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 05:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

List of members of Municipal Committee Kunzer

List of members of Municipal Committee Kunzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article lists the members of the municipal committee of a city with the population below 2K. Are these guys collectively notable? If yes, how can we make sure the article gets updated on a regular basis? Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Allow. The Government of India and J&K upload the result after these elections on the official website of CEO of J&K. So it would get updated on a regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshil Sharma Editor (talk • contribs) 08:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete/merge When a town is small, please add content relating to its government to its main article (Kunzer), not in a separate page. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. It seems like the key argument for deletion offered by the delete camp is that the topic of the article is not really discussed by independent secondary sources and thus WP:GNG/WP:LISTN and related notability criteria cannot be satisfied by the topic. Only one keep argument (by Andrew Davidson) has attempted to counter this but the rebuttal that the proffered sources by Rorshacma that the sources are not primarily about the boats in the books has not been effectively countered. Most other keep arguments do not actually address the delete arguments - for example, just because a book series is notable does not mean that a list of in-universe objects automatically is as well, per both the "independent"/"secondary" prong of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. And since in AFD policy and guideline-based arguments carry more weight, this indicates a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

List of boats in Arthur Ransome books

List of boats in Arthur Ransome books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable collection of fictional minutia TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - I actually had a need for the information provided in this article, and am happy that it is here.--173.220.231.34 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Ransome is a significant and notable prize winning children's author. He included a large number of boats in his books, several of which are actually the titles of the books in the series. They are not trivial or non-notable to anyone interested in studying Ransome as is shown by the fact they are included in books written about him and his work. Dabbler (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - a list of items related to a significant series of books (and their real-life origins) Hugo999 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, trivia, unsourced, no out of universe notability. Also @Dabbler: might want to check WP:ATA because "I like it" is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. The complaint about out of universe notability shows that TPH doesn't understand the topic, as Ransome's fictional boats were typically based on real boats and many of them still exist or have been recreated so you can actually sail in them. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, fails WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. How trivial and ORish does it get? "Each of the following has an unnamed rowing-boat: ... In We Didn't Mean to go to Sea Mother (probably belonging to Miss Powell or the boatman)". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So evidence of an attempt to be fully comprehensive is a sign that the article is "trivial"? Would you apply this same standard to other articles and lists where people have attempted to be comprehensive even if it means including some items of perhaps lesser importance? Dabbler (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is notable as it passes WP:LISTN. Examples of detailed coverage include The World of Arthur Ransome; Where are Ransome’s Boats Now?; Arthur Ransome's Boats; Setting sail on Arthur Ransome's boat; Ransome’s lakes revisited; Notes on Arthur Ransome's boats; Arthur Ransome’s East Coast; Arthur Ransome Pin Mill Jamboree; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - The sources provided by Andrew Davidson are not sufficient as reliable, secondary sources regarding the list of fictional boats. One of them (this one,is a personal fansite, and not reliable sources. All of the rest of them are not actually about the fictional boats that this list is about, but about the real life boats owned by Arthur Ransome, which is a completely different subject. Two of them (this one and this one) are about the Nancy Blackett (cutter), a real life boat owned by Arthur Ransome, and while it may have been named after a character from the books, is not actually a boat in the books, and thus is not part of this list. This one is, similarly, not about one of the fictional boats that appeared in the books, but on another real-life boat owned by Arthur Ransome, the Peter Duck, named after a character from his books. This one is not only just a personal fansite, it is also talking about the real life boats. And finally, this one and this one are not talking about the fictional books that appear on this list, but about Arthur Ransome's real life, and the real boats he owned. So, in short, searching for sources come up with non-reliable fansites on the fictional boats, and some reliable sources on the real life boats owned by the author that, while possibly useful sources for his own article, are not even on the topic that this list is about, which is the fictional boats that appeared in his books. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nancy Blackett (cutter) is not only a real boat owned by Ransome but is also the original for the fictional Goblin in the book We Didn't Mean to Go to Sea. As for reliable sources, is the book referenced in the list not count as a reliable source? When do you describe a scholarly article as fan article? Why do you call the website (All Things Ransome) of an incorporated entity that provides an extensive collection of researched articles and other Ransome related material a "personal fansite". It is perhaps not all peer reviewed but it is far from trivia. Dabbler (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Nancy Blackett was the inspiration of one of the fictional boats, as were three others of his according to the sources, but again, the sources are about the boats as they existed in real life. Sources that are entirely about how the real life boats are notable, with a line or two about how they inspired a couple of the fictional boats, is not significant coverage on the fictional boats. And since, according to these sources, only four of the real world boats were the basis of any of the multitude of boats on this list, that fact certainly does not allow this list to pass WP:LISTN. And the site in question is literally a fansite, and the content within does not meet the standards of being a reliable source, as defined at WP:RELIABLESOURCE.Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No significant independent coverage of these boats. Thanks to Rorshacma for deconstructing the typical "Here's some irrelevant Google search results I found but didn't read" nonsense. As usual, they make the series notable but not this particular list! Boats that are integral to the series' plots should be mentioned at Swallows and Amazons series or the book articles, not listed just because they happen to be mentioned. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Rorshacma's commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Rorshacma who sadly had to waste his time analyzing the WP:REFBOMB of what should have been a foregone conclusion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I favour keeping this article. Major series of books; the boats are an integral part of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Foster (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Andrew D's and Dabbler's commentaries. Though it does need expansion and clean up. Broichmore (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The deletion request is only about a lack of sources for this page, so any justifications for deletion based on triviality or notability are irrelevant and more importantly invalid.

However, it is even more important to note that the deletion request overlooks the primary purpose of this article - namely it is a sub-article for a listing of inanimate characters that appear in a series of books. The primary type of references should be in-text links back to the relevant book articles.

An example of this may be found via the series article Swallows and Amazons series, where under the Major Characters section there is a link to a subarticle for characters in the series: List of Swallows and Amazons characters

As this article is the equivalent of the above for boat characters that appear in the series, it should be improved and linked appropriately.

In hindsight, this article should have been tagged for cleanup and improvement rather than for deletion, as it is Wikipedia's stated policy that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. --Mercurivs (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Boats are objects, not inanimate characters. Unless I'm missing some kind of implication of personification, that's a bad comparison. You also have the faulty assumption that character lists are inherently necessary article forks. That character list should be deleted as well considering all the novel articles should easily be able to handle a summary style description of their own characters. TTN (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as per comments above. It is not unsourced: the books themselves provide the source.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Primary sources are not able to establish notability. See WP:RS. If primary sources are the only sources, it is unsourced. TTN (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Notice on Canvasing - So, I happened to notice that "The Arthur Ransome Group" on Facebook has posted a notice to participate in this discussion on their Facebook page. I'm not actually sure on the exact rules on canvasing to know if this counts as WP:STEALTH, but I thought it was important to note that this is certainly skewing the discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure if it's stealth canvassing per se, since the group's public, but it's definitely regular old canvassing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: trivial fancrust.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2019 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Forlong the Fat

Forlong the Fat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A very minor character in LOTR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Very minor character. Forlong doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. Redirect to The Return of the King? Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This article makes no indication of its subject's importance. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I couldn't find anything GNG worthy in my WP:BEFORE -2pou (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: extremely minor, only mentioned briefly in the novel among a host of many in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, but not mentioned in that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable character. There is no sourcing that shows notability outside of the source book (where he is in no way central to the plot).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sabal Singh Bhati

Sabal Singh Bhati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An attempt of self-promotion. The subject is not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Awards that the subject has received are insignificant and do not help in establishing notability. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the username of the editor who created the article indicates that this is most likely a promotional WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a resume, not an encyclopedic article. Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable autobio that does not pass WP:GNG per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Niharika Times

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

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

A non-notable newspaper not meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Article has been likely created by the founder of the newspaper. Please see WP:Soapbox. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is indian newspaper registered by RNI, India government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalbhati (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of being notable. A subject doesn't get an article for simply existing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree with @GPL93:, Wikipedia:FAILN Rocktober2018 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable newspaper. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (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 redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Khalid Aftab Sulehri

Khalid Aftab Sulehri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. The subject is yet to contest and win elections. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party, the political party that he founded. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pakistan Insani Haqooq Party as a plausible search term. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect Seems the best solution, but I suspect we will be back here in as many weeks. scope_creep^Talk 23:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect. Neither being chairman nor founder of a minor political party translates into an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — the key to getting him a standalone article is to show that either (a) he has actually been elected to a notable political office, or (b) he has received a substantial volume of reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. But the footnotes here are his own Twitter feed, which is not a reliable or notability-supporting source at all, and a very short blurb about him giving a speech, which is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2019 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear My Girls

Dear My Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced manga (mahwa). I can't find any reviews or such. No indication this series passes Wikipedia:Notability (books), or WP:GNG in general. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The Korean name for this series is 작은아씨들 which also gives no promising results. Redirecting this to Little Women wouldn't do any good as there is no mention of this series there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as above. It could be redirected to the Little Women adaptations if it had sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: No sources and it's a stub. No evidence of notability. Ideally it would be great to redirect it to Little Women under the adaptations section. lullabying (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (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 keep. There seems to be general agreement that there are sufficient reliable, independent sources available to satisfy WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 05:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Radagast

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

</noinclude>

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

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

Minor supporting fictional character fro Middle-Earth. There is a proposed merge, but the target article is even worse (and I've prodded it). No evidence the character received sufficient in-depth analysis to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. WP:PLOT+media appearances. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: As the editor who proposed the merge, I think this is a better option. Radagast is a minor character. He is mentioned briefly in The Hobbit. He is mentioned in The Lord of the Rings at the time of the Council of Elrond, and is never mentioned again. He is left out of the films of LOTR, though he has an expanded role in the films of The Hobbit. In fact, this article is probably longer that the mentions of him in Tolkien's published works, which is absolutely ridiculous. This does not belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep There are specific papers about Radagast such as The Enigma of Radagast; Radagast in Middle Earth and plenty more coverage in more general works such as the The Origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth For Dummies. The nomination's assertions and claims are therefore false as the subject is notable per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. Relevant policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:STAFF. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Davidson's argument on the availability of sources. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I vouch for the papers (minus the poem given Piotrus's comment) Andrew D pointed out, and there is also J.R.R. Tolkien: the Forest and the City (2013) which covers him in a review of the work, presumably meaning there would be more detail in Nycz's original work. -2pou (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Vouch for? Did you even read them?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the poem in its entirety. Very nice. I had considered it good before, but I have now discounted that from counting towards GNG. Not because it is a poem, though (poetry can absolutely be a significant source)—only based on Piotrus pointing out that it was published before this particular publication became a peer-reviewed journal, and I now can't tell for sure if it is "Reliable" per GNG. I can't fathom how an editor or peer would change a poem as that would defeat the spirit of the art form, but I will keep things simple. Did I read the first paper? No, not in its entirety, I'm not ashamed to admit that, but I read enough of the paper to determine that educational institutions are willing to discuss the topic and enough for me to evaluate it against GNG. To be clear, I don't know enough about LOTR articles here to search for an appropriate merge or redirect target, so I am containing myself to the topic of deletion: yes or no, and at this point Notabilty is the only argument to delete. I treat ALLPLOT as a need to improve an article or change its focus, not to delete it (assuming Notability is met). ALLPLOT could help discount Significance in sources, though. Basically is it:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail without being a regurgitation of plot
✓Reliable - From a journal article that can be found via academic institutions, and the paper was published with editorial oversight
✓Sources (plural) - This doesn't have to do with endorsing, but there are at least two throughout this discussion
✓Independent - From an academic journal not controlled by the Tolkein estate
I interpret significant coverage as something that can be determined in as little as a paragraph (sometimes even a couple sentences), even when discussing how important or unimportant something should be treated. Let's say the Journal of Soda Pop publishes an article about 7-orange-cola calling it the most overrated and forgettable soda in the world, going on to explain that it is too sticky, too fruity, the pH is off, and there's too much carbonation over one page. That just counted as one source to justify notability, and only one more is needed to satisfy GNG, even if the other is just as diminutive to the subject. Again, I'm only commenting on whether material is justified as having a spot in Wikipedia, not where it should be. I'll abstain from a merge discussion as proper sorting is more difficult than throwing away or keeping, and should be carried out by those more knowledgeable than me. I personally would love to be able to look up anything, minor or major, but I'll follow the guidelines that are there. -2pou (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@2pou: Thank you for your detailed response. As I said, I think that article is not best, since the coverage of Radagast is rather short, but more to the point, it is pretty much limited to quoting from another source, which I have traced to a book: [72]. Unfortunately, GB has no preview, and I can't find this book on Library Genesis, so I can't investigate if it contains a more in-depth analysis than what is quoted in that article. And so far what we have is borderline. But much better than we started. If this is kept, which is possible, we at least have sufficient sources to add a few sentences to the reception. A win in either case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that a fan has written a poem about Radagast means we need an article. You'll always have the poem.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect - I don't think the sources provided can actually build an article. It's probably enough to avoid deletion, but it should be relegated to some minor list. TTN (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: regarding the sources, "Enigma" says, "The wizard Radagast the Brown plays a minor role in The Lord of the Rings" and spends some time discussing why Radagast never appears later in the book. "Radagast in Middle-Earth" is a poem. The source related to The Forest and the City is a review, not an introduction. It says that claims of Radagast's importance are "overstated". I don't think citing sources like that proves anything. LOTR is a popular work, and even a minor character will be written about, but that no reason to give him a Wikipedia article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed above. Danke. -2pou (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Scholars have studied him, he was featured in various notable media to different degrees, and all those talking about the films always mention him, he a significant character. He seems as notable as a fictional character can be. Too much information to be merged over to another article. Dream Focus 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I think old Radagast deserves a little article, esp. compared to what we see in other articles. Above, someone invokes "Tolkien for Dummies"--that's not the kind of thing that's really helpful, and neither is Mythlore, which can explain things but can hardly add to notability since Tolkien is their thing, or one of their things. But there are other sources, even though not that many--this book is a recent academic publication, and the two pages on Radagast certainly count as in-depth discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Two pages, only two pages, discussing an unrelated TV show!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep notable character from a groundbreaking work. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE is not the best argument out there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. [73] is from 1985 and per Mythlore (cn...) "Early issues were fanzines, albeit with a "sercon" ("serious and constructive") bent. Mythlore became a peer-reviewed journal beginning with issue #85 (Winter 1999)". That said, [74] is a very nice source, and while I don't often agree with user:Andrew Davidson, this time he found a very nice source (and credit should be given where due). I am not sure if For Dummies series can be seen as a reliable source, this is the type of publication that doesn't seem above using Wikipedia as a source. [75] found by User:2pou mentions Radagast mostly in passing, but does cite a work that says "“once given the depth and substance of the Istari, Radagast is transformed into vital part [sic] of Tolkien’s narrative"; unfortunately the citations seem broken in this article, so I am unsure what is the source (some work by Dominika Nycz, perhaps). If anyone could trace that source and link it here, it might be the second in-depth source, and my personal rule of thumb is that once there are two good sources (so far I see one), a topic is notable, I and I am prepared to withdraw this at that point (so far, with one good source, I am still leaning to delete or merge). As for the source found by User:Drmies, the analysis seems superficial and this mostly a recount of a fictional character bio, so IMHO this fails in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ooooh Piotrus, it's two pages in an academic book. It may seem superficial to you, but it probably didn't seem superficial to the editors at Routledge. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: If the book was about Radagast, you'd be right. The book, however, mentions him just in passing. Yes, few sentences summarizing his plot with maybe one-two sentences of any analysis that goes beyond that is pretty superficial, and I doubt the editors at Roudledge published this book just because of its 'treatment' or Radagast. And User:Jack Upland pointed out the same problem with that source above, so it's not like I am the only one seeing an issue here. May I suggest that rather than tryin to argue this is good you find something better? You'll not convince me this is a good source, but you may convince me to withdraw this nom if you find a better one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Whether the character should have their own article based on the book is not important, because the character in The Hobbit film series is a significant fictional character. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You know that WP:NOTINHERITED? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Wizard (Middle-earth). See Talk:Wizard (Middle-earth)#Merger proposal. Goustien (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Snow Keep Per the compelling arguments of DreamFocus, the Colonel & DrMies. Radagast isn't just some random human wizard, he's a Maiar, something comparable with a Principality. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is about the notability of Radagast as a fictional character, not about his notability in Middle Earth.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Snow Keep Per the compelling arguments of DreamFocus, the Colonel. DrMies and User:FeydHuxtable. Indeed, given the finds of user:Andrew Davidson, it is clear that there was no compliance with WP:Before, which takes into account what the article can become, not just what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Snow Delete: Just starry-eyed fans citing sources they've never read, not disputing that Radagast is a minor character.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I downloaded Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment and Radagast does not have his own entry in it. It is telling that he wasn't even considered important enough for an entry in a Tolkien-lore specialized encyclopedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's really isn't much to say about him, is there?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to the general article on wizards of middle earth. Radagast just does not get enough coverage to justify a stand alone article. While the Hobbit movies may come close to tipping the balance, they do not go far enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong keep Major characters in J. R. R. Tolkien's should not be deleted. No question about it. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but why do you think Radagast, who is only mentioned in LOTR around the Council of Elrond and is never mentioned again is a "major character"? How would you define a minor character?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2019 (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 redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards). ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wizard (Middle-earth)

Wizard (Middle-earth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What makes the concept of Middle-earth wizard encyclopedic? Seems to fail WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT. No independent sources, all WP:PRIMARY, a de facto fancruft essay "Wizards of Middle Earth". Not sure if there is any good merge target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: There is no reason to have this article. The main wizards in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, Gandalf and Saruman already have their own articles. Radagast is a very minor character. He is mentioned briefly in The Hobbit. He is mentioned in The Lord of the Rings at the time of the Council of Elrond, and is never mentioned again. He is left out of the films of LOTR, though he has an expanded role in the films of The Hobbit. The Blue Wizards are even less notable. They don't appear in the two major works at all. Their "existence" has been gleaned from draft manuscripts published long after Tolkien's death. Overall, the authorities cited by this article have a wraith-like quality, being works attributed to Tolkien without his consent and after he was dead. These articles should be dropped into the fires of Mount Doom.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a substantial article with references. Vorbee (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Mostly original research. A wizard is a wizard, that can be explained on the pages of the notable wizards of the series and doesn't require a separate crufty page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards) where there is already an entry and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Hard to decifer if it's notable as a concept in and of itself. It's too generic to find sources, I thought maybe searching for "Istari" would be more fruitful, but it doesn't seem to be (or at least from what I have access to).
  Potential: "Nycz, D. (2013). The Forest and the City: The Dichotomy of Tolkien's Istari. Tolkien: The Forest and the City, 67-75." (which would have to be borrowed from a library). A review of the book has an overview of her essay here, and that provides notability itself (as a single source), but more would need to be definitively found. Maybe I can request a copy... -2pou (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a review, not an introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Gracias. Fixed. -2pou (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect per 2pou. Pretty much what's not already there is in-universe plot details. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards) This is not a notable concept, but it is a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards). Goustien (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Good article. Consider deleting blue wizards instead. (Stpaul (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC))
• Redirect as 2pou said. Lacks definite/reliable sources and the fact that there's only 5 of them known in the universe, the race summary should be fine unless people need specific information about the more significant characters. Fenceless (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article is currently too in-universe, there are sufficient book sources with out-of-universe discussion, some of it academic, to enable a good article to be built. There is J.R.R. Tolkien's Gandalf and Saruman in the Tradition of Shakespeare's Prospero. There is discussion of Tolkien's inspirations and antecedants for his wizards in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment with respect to Druids [76], and The Kalevala, [77], as well as extensive entries for Gandalf [78], Saruman [79], and Tolkien's wizards generally [80]. Radagast is also covered (but not in his own entry) and there are even a couple of mentions of the Blue Wizards. The Medieval Hero on Screen: Representations from Beowulf to Buffy discusses Merlin as an influence for Tolkien's wizards and their portrayal in film. Although primary The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien contains usable information on how Tolkien himself viewed his wizards. In short, this is a demonstrably notable subject. SpinningSpark 22:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: The first source seems to be a student paper and it focuses on wizards, not Tolkien ones. The third reference seems to be to mostly in passing, with the idea of the concept of Wizards. But the Tolkien encyclopedia, which seems to be a reliable source, does indeed have its own article on wizards. It is a good source (I've donwloaded it for reference to use before I consider any other Tolkien article for deletion) and I'd usually consider it sufficient to withdraw this nom (since I have a rule of thumb that if something has an entry in a specialized encyclopedia, we should have an entry on it) however in this particular case the entry is very disappointing: it contains not an ounce of analysis, it is just a PLOT-like summary of what Wizards are. Even your other entries, which are more in passing to the idea, contain more actual analysis of this. As such, I want you to know I appreciate you finding those sources, but I don't think they change my view on notability of this topic (however I am pretty open to considerations of merge, probably to Middle-earth peoples#Istari (Wizards), with a see also at least from Magic_(supernatural)#Magicians. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 15 November 2019 (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 speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wang Yi-ta

Wang Yi-ta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - article is in need of a lot of work but the subject appears notable. Entrant in a string of competitions ([81], [82]) - Bronze medals in 2017 Asian Karate Championships, silver in 2013 Asian Karate Championships and 2018 Asian Karate Championships, silver medal in the Karate at the 2018 Asian Games – Men's kata, silver in the Karate kata at the 2019 World Beach Games. Exploits reported on in various outlets - [83], [84], [85]. Spokoyni (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reworked the article to meet wiki standards. And as to WP:SIGCOV, this is more the English-language bias unfortunately. Searches in Chinese show a wide range of sources and reports - [86], [87], [88], [89], etc. Including in sources like China Times and Focus Taiwan, Spokoyni (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Asian Games medalist is notable Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination. Andrew Base (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dead Men of Dunharrow

Dead Men of Dunharrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pretty minor WP:PLOT element form Tolkien stories. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. No in-depth coverage, only plot-like summary of their fictional origins/appearance in books and related media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BEFORE just found a lot of in-universe books, or Top X ghost lists. Scholar material has plenty of hits, but it’s hard to separate what is in depth analysis and what is just plot. Their curse is somewhat on the nose, so discussion of what it represents is really just plot, IMO (discussions relating to main character development is different). It does seem like a plausible search term, but the only redirect target that came to mind (Middle-earth peoples#The Dead)doesn’t quite fit. -2pou (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Minutia that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Middle-earth peoples#The Dead. Goustien (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: minor detail of the plot, already dealt with in general articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2019 (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 redirect to Paul Martin Pearson. The argument to redirect is more compelling than keeping a standalone article on this topic. I'm not seeing any agreement that the available sources are enough to provide sufficient content on which to base a full article on this event. This doesn't mean that the event still can't be covered elsewhere. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum

1933 United States Virgin Islands governor referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page seems to have no english sources and no google searching could find any reliable sources that pertained to this article, therefore I believe that it fails to reach any type of notability guidelines.Alex the Nerd (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmm - The only source is that German database, and we'd certainly want more than that to keep. This needs looking into more closely - the database as it's source lists "William W. Boyer, America's Virgin Islands , Durham 1983, pp. 149-152" - has anyone had a chance to read this? FOARP (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep @FOARP: Although I have only been able to carry out a limited search of the book, the figure of 7,366 votes (the number cast against the proposal) shows up on page 152 (as mentioned by the database). The database is a reliable source and it (and its author Beat Müller) is regularly cited in academic works.[90][91] Number 57 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still hazy on this. We know that the figure is mentioned there, but we don't know anything else about it. Anyway, at least two supporting references are needed for a WP:GNG pass - thus far only one is available. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It also says that it was an inofficial referendum, so it was more of a poll than a referendum, if I understand correctly. So I don't think it meets notability if its only mentioned in one database, citing one book. Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That (it being an unofficial poll) is the one thing that I think is a proper argument for deletion. The lack of sources is more likely due to us not having access to contemporary media coverage. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Paul Martin Pearson? All the content is already there. Even if this weren't a "private referendum", not every item on the ballot is automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect. I had just typed something like Reywas92 just said when my computer crashed. This was an opinion poll, not a proper vote, and a turnout of 7,500 out of a population of 100,000 or so is pretty abysmal. Nothing happened as a result; Pearson remained in office, and as far as anyone knows, the policy remained in place. The vote was entirely ignored. In the absence of any sources discussing its significance, there is no grounds for an article. SpinningSpark 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: In 1933 the islands' population was only 23,000. In a referendum fifteen years later there were only 5,509 registered voters and only 1,500 bothered to vote. The 7,500 turnout wasn't beaten until a referendum in 1970, so was actually pretty significant. Number 57 21:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That doesn't change the fact that there is no significant coverage in sources. My reoommendation stands. SpinningSpark 22:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that it did, just correcting the assertion that the turnout was abysmal, when in fact it was around a third of the population. If anyone has access to contemporary sources, that would help. Unfortunately it can be quite difficult to find decent sources for Caribbean islands from this period and there are several elections from the 1920s and 1930s that currently have no article because I have been unable to access historical newspapers for the region (yet). If this was held now I have no doubt that would be sufficient coverage for an article. Number 57 23:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect per Reywas92 - The referendum appears to have happened, but barring any further sources indicating notability this is a WP:GNG fail. Therefore let's note that the referendum took place on the page of the governor and leave it at that. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep As stated by Number 57, this does appear to be a highly notable event. Just because the source itself isn't in English doesn't mean that it's not notable. SuperChris (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• The problem with the source is not that it's in German, but that it is merely a database entry, and as such does not support notability. SpinningSpark 19:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think this is highly notable? IMO its not a government referendum, but one held by a civic betterment association, which led to zero effects on the governor, he wasn't even replaced until two years and a Senate investigation later. Alex the Nerd (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about these unofficial referendums, but in this case I think the fact that around a third of the entire population voted probably makes it notable, as turnout is akin to that of a formal referendum (in fact, per the stats above it was the highest turnout in the islands until 1970). Number 57 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep? our article possibly has the date wrong, it's October 20, 1933, and received national U.S. coverage. However, there were no coverage of the results, was not an official referendum, and Pearson at least appeared to keep his job as he had been reappointed the week before. There is coverage, though, including from the L.A. Times, and there's every good chance it can be improved with proper research. [92] [93] SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: I don't have a newspapers.com account, so can you tell me if there is any indication in those sources that they go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. On the face of it, reporting on the day the results were announced is pretty much what ROUTINE and NOTNEWS are meant to address – no long term notability. SpinningSpark 14:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The fact a referendum was occurring - in the Virgin Islands of all places - was indeed national news in the 1930s, though the results of the referendum were not covered by any newspapers within newspapers.com's purview. There's enough to write an article on. It certainly was not a "routine" event. SportingFlyer T·C 15:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Notable enough for news != notable enough for encyclopedia page. If you don't even have the results in those sources, I don't see how they can be enough to write an article. SpinningSpark 15:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I find it very relevant the LA Times would spend inches on it in 1933. You're welcome to disagree. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 20 November 2019 (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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

New Mobility Agenda

New Mobility Agenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability; previously deleted via WP:PROD and restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. This reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. It is entirely possible that the topic itself is worthy of inclusion, and while the term appears to be used, I cannot tell from a cursory search how much this differs from, say, sustainable transport. Given the tone and next-to-nil sourcing, I cannot tell how much of the content is useful or relevant, which seems to make this a WP:TNT situation even if an article about it should exist. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a French name to the organization? References may be in French as well as in English. I haven't found a lot of coverage in English, although the organization's director has been quoted a lot in major newspaper publications like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. The organization itself has not been the focus of those article which largely about larger transportation issues. The only publication of note I found was by an environmental lobby group, but I'm not really sure if it could be considered independent: [94].4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: An extremely undersourced article / essay about an organisation and its wider area of concern. My searches are not finding better than copies of parts of the present article text - nothing meeting WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. I agree with the above comment by Kinu and another user's article Talk page concerns from 2008. Fails WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete:I agree with the previous comments, this article fails notability and is written in such a way that if (and I might) all the unsourced material was removed it would be more of a non-notable stub.VViking_TalkEdits 14:27, 12 November 2019 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Industrial blockchain

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

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

This article is not needed. Business applications of blockchains are already mentioned in Blockchain#Uses, the rest of the article is a WP:COATRACK about how blockhain might "enhance" and "contribute to the advancement" of Cyber-physical systems rather than anything about how blockhains are used in the industry or on an industrial scale. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• This page has been created to motivate researchers for contributing to industrial applications of blockchain technology and more precisely focus on smart manufacturing. Although there is another page talking about blockchain in general, but smart manufacturing (or cyber-physical-system) is itself a very big industry with its own challenges and limitations. Recently GE, IBM, Mazak, P&G, etc have shown a huge interest in using blockchain in their manufacturing progress towards industry 4.0. This page would serve as a guideline that gradually would be completed and used for industrial people with the main focus on their specific needs rather than some shallow discussion on some other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus Azamfar (talk • contribs)

• Comment: I am having trouble finding a deletion rationale in there. WP:SKCRIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs) Ok I see it thanks ST47 Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Articles are allowed to exist on subtopics. If there is enough encyclopedic content available on the subtopic, it could very well warrant it's own article. While I do disagree with the purpose of the article provided by Cyrus Azamfar, in particular using the article to "motive researchers", I do agree with the rest of his comment. Using blockchain within manufacturing appears to be very notable, and with enough big corporations such as GE, IBM, and Mazak provided, I'm very confident that there is significant coverage with verifiable information. Of course, I haven't investigated yet, therefore I shouldn't cast a vote at this time. But that's just what I'm picking up upon reading the nomination. Utopes (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Upon thoroughly reading, it appears that the topic is notable, and supported by verifiable journals. While I won't deny that the article is structured like an essay, and should be appropriately fixed (and also doesn't add any necessary wikilinks, which is very important for a specialized article such as this one. But that doesn't pertain to my !vote). Nevertheless, AfD is not cleanup. The article, while it has flaws, is by no means an article worthy of deletion for existing on a notable subtopic. Utopes (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator's rationale is that this information duplicates some of the information that we already have in Blockchain#Uses. If information can be merged it should be WP:PRESERVE however my concern is that the Blockchain#Uses article is already lengthy. This article is sourced with WP:RSsLightburst (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator – I didn't think there would be much to preserve if this article were to be merged somewhere, but if others feel that the topic itself is notable enough then I withdraw this nomination. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 05:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Frank F. Karasti

Frank F. Karasti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Is simply a grandson's tribute to his grandfather. Fails as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this is only a one-sentence mention in passing, this is also a passing mention, with identical information, as is this. Nothing else substantial comes up. The incident, while tragic, is not enough to cross the threshold for an article on Karasti as he's only notable for one event and that event is not itself particularly encyclopedia-worthy. Wikipedia is also not a memorial service, so I thank Mr. Karasti for his service but note that he is not a notable subject for Wikipedia's purposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The "References" section contains this link, which goes to the "Extension of Remarks" section of the Congressional Record for January 31, 1984. The relevance is not immediately apparent, but a search for his name takes one to the remarks of Congressman James Oberstar at page 1150. Oberstar reports on his contacts with Mr. Karasti and his recent death, and adds to the record a bylined article from the Ely Echo (a local newspaper) detailing his postwar experiences in the atomic tests and radiation illness. To the same effect is the article from the Mesabi Daily News appearing on our page. So there is some mention of him, but likely not enough to meet our notability standards. We do not have an article on the National Association of Atomic Veterans and our article on Atomic veteran is somewhat basic. Kablammo (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Karasti is also mentioned and quoted here in Cavie umane: L'America e l'enrgia nucleare: cronaca di un disastro annunciato (apparently a translation of an English work); in twicerisensun.com here; and in Killing our own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation here. Given those, I am striking my opinion above. But if this article is to be kept, it must be based on such third-party sources, without copying. Kablammo (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - There were thousands of troops exposed to radiation blast (I've seen the lists). Karasti's contributions would fit well into Atomic veteran as a part of a section on National Association of Atomic Veterans, which should be created as a redirect. The item in the Congressional Record is a kind of memorial.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:06, 14 November 2019 (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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Salamina Dromolaxias

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

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

The team fails WP:FOOTYN as they didn't play in the national cup for Cyprus with their two appearances in the fourth division in 1991 and 1997 being their only claim to existing. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability - no sporting achievements and no significant coverage. GiantSnowman 09:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: if deleted, this would be the only redlink at 1997–98 Cypriot Fourth Division. Have all the other teams accomplished larger things or has the Fourth Division been considered the notability threshold? Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I see from Cypriot Cup that that might be the case. If deleted, then, Salamina Dromolaxias should be unlinked. Geschichte (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2019 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Rosemary Sage

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

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:AUTHOR. She Looks like a prolific author who would pass WP:PROF#1
• Supporting Learning in Primary Schools
• Diverse Backgrounds
• Quoted in this book on Mutism Tackling Selective Mutism: A Guide for Professionals and Parents
• Paradoxes in Education: Learning in a Plural Society
• Inclusion in SchoolsMaking a Difference
• Class Talk (Literacy Collection)
• Lend Us Your Ears: Listen and Learn

Seems like she is a big deal WP:AUTHOR and professor. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm pretty sure enough of her many books have been reviewed in reliable sources to pass WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately, her name makes it difficult to find those reviews among all the works involving herbs and spices, without having to tediously search for each title. Instead, we can go by WP:PROF#C5 and the UK Chair in Communication in Education that she was given in 2007 [95]. The article has existed in this more-or-less unsourced state since 2005, and that should be fixed, but it can be fixed without deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per the current CV at Buckingham which reflects a long and notable career. PamD 15:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Withdraw: I'm withdrawing this, but only per David Eppstein. Publishing a lot of works does not automatically equal notability and neither does her resume. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2019 (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 delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SoftStack Factory

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. (Never mind the question of what a "bootcamp" is supposed to be anyway in this context [apart from marketing buzzword glurge].) Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - highly promo, which I suppose could be fixed, but why bother? Non notable organization, failing both NCORP and GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - They have no press coverage. The only thing that shows up on Google are social media profiles, reviews and directory listings. This article meets WP:G11 for a speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonstephen0 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - local business journals regularly write about new shops in town. That's why they're called.. ahem busienss journal. A local paper or newsletters don't satisfy significant coverage criterion of notability guidelines for organizations and companies Graywalls (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2019 (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.