Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 15

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) More...

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

< 14 April	16 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea#Adaptations and variations. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Crayola Kids Adventures: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Redirect to ~~either Adam Wylie, as he was the lead actor in all three of Crayola Kids Adventures, or~~ to Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea#Adaptations and variations where it is at least worth a mention. This Hallmark children's adventure appears to have received two Daytime Emmy Award nominations in 1998, and while it does not seem to have received much attention otherwise, it is at least sourcable enough to redirect.. Schmidt, 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea#Adaptations and variations as suggested. Pegship (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: IF an article were to be written about the entire Crayola Kids Adventures (trilogy), the redirect can be switched to the new article, and the title could still remain in the list at Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea#Adaptations and variations. Schmidt, 17:20, 20 April 2012 (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 result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Lips

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

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON, they don't pass WP:MUSICBIO as to reliable coverage and so on, the only thing possibly in their favour is a week's airplay on Radio 1. CaptainScreebo 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I agree this looks a little too soon. Not enough coverage yet. --Michig (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Coverage appears to be marginal. They have been signed to a record deal with a major label but not released anything on the label. They appear to be "up and coming?; no prejudice to recreation when they transition to "arrived". -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ged UK 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 World Tour

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

Useless disambiguation. Many things are referred to as a "2013 World Tour", same with 2012, 2011, 2010... This is what we have categories for. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind either way whether this is kept or deleted; I created it after a renaming another article (on a concert tour) that originally had this name. Categories wouldn't cover this page's scope, however—the page covers both sporting and musical events; I can't see how someone searching for the ambiguous term of "2013 world tour" could find what they want using categories. matt (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Searching for "2013 world tour" yields all the pages listed on the disambiguation page plus quite a few more. You are correct that this isn't a category either. Looking at the search results makes me think all of the search results would be on the disambiguation page, but that's not particularly useful to create a page of search results. A PTM search of article titles has 6 that would generally not need disambiguation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep And expand. A likely search term which helps the average reader. Articles and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts 18:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Personally, I find a disam page more user friendly and less forbidding looking than a category page. I would imagine that casual visitors would feel this even more. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as per above. Put it this way - where would you redirect this title? If you come up with a bunch of suggestions, it's better left as a disambiguation page. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PTM. This is a partial title match. --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep Disambiguation pages are harmless and this one is potentially useful. J04n(talk page) 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hunter Network

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any sources on this anywhere, not even the network's website which is mentioned in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can find no coverage about this proposed network. The article is completely lacking in context. Who or what is "Hunter"? Fails the fundamental policy of verifiability at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rio 2

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

It's basically a case of ~~WP:NOTYET~~ and WP:CRYSTAL. There really isn't enough evidence to establish notability for an independent article, and really I have no problem with the article just redirecting to Rio (film)#Sequel. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's WP:NotJustYet. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel sounds good to me, as well. I agree that there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage to support a separate article at this time (
We actually don't know whether the name of the article is going to be called Rio 2, when I mentioned this, the creator changed the citations in the article to "Untitled Rio sequel". All another reason this shouldn't merit an article of its own. Yet. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Reason I did that was I've seen articles titles such as Untitled Star Trek sequel and Untitled Thomas and Friends Film Project, and thought it would be more fitting to have the article named something like this. But since it's under articles for deletion right now, I'm not going to rename the article itself at the moment.--BarrettM82 Contact 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The reason those articles are included are because they have significant coverage to comply with Knowledge's notability guideline (the Untitled Star Trek sequel has 46 inline citations alone). Since there isn't much sources to say that the sequel to Rio will be created, it's just simply WP:TOOSOON for the article to be written at this time. When there is firm evidence and significant coverage to say that Rio 2 will be created, then the article may be written, but as of now, really you can still post information regarding this sequel at Rio (film)#Sequel. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unless I misunderstood something about the WP:SIGCOV link, but if you search "Rio sequel" on Google, you find sites citing what Sergio Mendes said about Rio 2 being likely quite often, or does it refer multiple sources with different citing different information? Back to the subject of redirect or article, now that I think about it, a redirect may be best for now.--BarrettM82 Contact 23:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sergio Mendes gave one claim, one sentence, that triggered a slight burst in news. This "significant coverage" does not qualify the notability guideline for future films, which tells us:

In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.

It's simply too soon for really anything to be put on the article that's good and solid, as you saw yourself when an IP put Anne Hathaway onto the article. Until significant coverage is available to say that Rio 2 is going to be made, then cover it at Rio (film)#Sequel for now. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, no verifiable info on a sequel at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel per WP:NotJustYet. If/when this film meets the criteria for inclusion, this article title should be redirected to the actual title of the film instead. - Jorgath (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel as per WP:NFF, which this clearly fails. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Zink magazine

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

Unreferenced since 2006. No suggestion of notability. No proof of circulation that *might* have given some niche notability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment it's mentioned a lot in online publications, blogs, etc, but I can't find much in the more notable fashion press (Vogue, WWD, Elle, etc) or in newspapers. As a magazine that's been running for more than 10 years, I think somebody with a better idea of where to look might be able to find something, although I'm a little concerned that I can't get more info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete No sources since the article was created 5 years ago. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep 45 hits for "Zink Magazine" in a Google News Archive search, although not much from the fashion press. To be honest, this article isn't of particular interest to me, but I don't really see why it should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, although somewhat weakly, based on two sources--one a paywalled (via Highbeam) article that provides approximately six short paragraphs of coverage of the magazine, starting from its new headquarters but discussing circulation figures, newsstand penetration and staff size, the second a Dutch article at NU.nl discussing Zink in the context of it's editorials against overphotoshopping of fashion models. I have added links to both sources to the article. --joe decker 16:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep per above provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Unanimity amongst the commentators that this organisation fails our notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindasa Water Services

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

Company may sound not significant, as per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Syed 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

delete fails WP:CORP. gnews reveals no in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - As Knowledge is not a web host, and an advertising medium. Much of the material has been copied from various pages of their web site. Anything that I could not trace to a page on their web site is promotional in nature. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1956. --MuZemike 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Jonnie Nicely

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

~~Non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)~~

Redirect the additional sources helps, but still falls short of GNG. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Here's a lengthy LA Times article with biographical info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, the LA Times piece really just reinforces that there's nothing particularly notable about her. She's listed here. . Suggest the ref be moved to that page. Wikipelli 12:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The LA Times article satisfies WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment, i can't get by the wp:gng suggestion that "Multiple sources are generally expected." (emphasis on plural) The Times piece is (to me) a puff piece about a woman that was a bunny and then worked in a factory. I don't consider that notable. Again, per wp:notable, she's listed in another article and does not warrant an article of her own. Wikipelli 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- GNews shows at least two other LA Times articles in 1986 and 1994. Unfortunately they're behind a paywall. Pburka (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Additionally, the original 1956 Playboy presumably contained more than just a photo. There's typically an article or biography included. This means that she was the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources in 1956, 1986, 1994 and 1995. Notability isn't a matter of opinion or importance. It's based on the simple criteria set forth in WP:GNG which this article satisfies. Pburka (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete the list is more then enough.BO; talk 18:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1956. Maybe there's a borderline notability, but anyway, as the article is very short, it could be easily merged there. Cavarrone (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. --MuZemike 20:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Neva Gilbert

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

Unsourced. Non notable Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. A borderline case, but my reading of the discussions last year was that even a de minimis film career independent of Playmate status was enough to justify an individual article, Consensus might change, and your mileage may vary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Per meeting HW's not-lax standards.--Milowent • 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I see little of note in this article. I do see links to the playboy website - indicating a foriegn commercial interest. The first uncredited movie role is also not notable. BO; talk 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The rough consensus indicates that the new sources provided are insufficient to show notability here. --MuZemike 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eye For Film

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

Mentions of this site in reliable sources are rare and even then the mentions are incredibly trivial. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Borderline keep - seeking more sources as we speak - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly invested in it staying or not, as I note it is borderline, and if it's deleted I expect it would be without prejudice as its notability is pretty clearly on a slow upward slope. But I think its presence is unproblematic - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Do I need to explain the meaning of the word "trivial" to anyone? Some of the mentions being added to the article are literally just links to the site that don't even mention the site by name. Knowledge is not free advertising space.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- More added since this comment - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

New sources, same poor quality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Small mentions in articles about different topics do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Adelanto, California#Public schools. joe decker 04:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Westside Park School

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

Fails WP:N. I can't find a single Google News hit for this elementary school despite the article's claim of "notoriety". Pburka (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect- Notability not established. All coverage routine. Redirect to Adelanto, California#Public schools since Adelanto School District has not yet been created. Dru of Id (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Redirect As per usual with non-notable elementary schools. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptionally newsworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was to keep the article. Merges and redirects of other articles can be discussed on the talk page. - filelake shoe 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deathlands

AfDs for this article:

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

Fiction book plot summary RichardMills65 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete - the fact that a movie has been made based upon the series makes it slightly notable, but not enough in my opinion. If the article is deleted, we should probably also delete articles related to characters set in the series, such as Mildred Wyeth --Kristjan Wager (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Delete No reviews or third party sources found. If the parent is deleted, the related subpages can be G8'd. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Current article is a mess, and the level of in-universe detail (and most or all the subpages) needs steeply culled. However, that this is a long-running series that has been adapted into a movie suggests that sources are likely. Here's a potential source from way outside the normal places to find comments on a book series. And of course, much of the reviews and discussions of the movie at least mention the book series that is its inspiration. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Challenge accepted. I'll see what I can do about trimming the article and fixing it. Just a question: Since the series is pretty extensive, spanning a long publication time, would it be acceptable to move the character into to a page entitled "List of Dethlands characters"? The individual character pages absolutely need to be deleted, but I think one page for a list of all of the characters would be a good idea.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I noticed that one of the qualifications of WP:NBOOK is that if a book or series has made a significant contribution to a notable movie, it could be considered notable as well. If the movie is considered notable enough to have its own article then that would extend to the book series as well. I'm still trying to find sources, but I just wanted to voice this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep as a series article. There is List of Deathlands novels that should be merged in here, as well as the individual volumes (Category:Deathlands novels; Pilgrimage to Hell would be the first) and the seven character articles Ryan Cawdor, Krysty Wroth, J. B. Dix, Dean Cawdor, Jak Lauren, Mildred Wyeth, and Dr. Theophilus Tanner. I volunteer for performing the mergers (should be uncontroversial). Or all those articles should be deleted as well for being even less notable. – sgeureka 11:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see my proposal was also pretty much the consensus in the last AfD. – sgeureka 11:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep. A dreadful article about a series of mostly dreadful potboilers, but it's been running for decades, has spun off other-media adaptations, and has installments written by notable writers. However, just about all the related articles (except author bios) should be deleted or merged here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sameer Inamdar

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable musician, only references provided are Facebook and his own website. role 12:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete The article's claims to notability are vague and dubious ("large fan following", "many students from all corners of India and abroad", and after making the world's smallest flute (?!) he then "came into lime light and since then he has always been in focus of people in the music circuit and media"), but even if these 'achievements' were enough and could be quantified, I can't find any sources to back any of it up. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. 24-year-old flute player has gotten a small bit of insubstantial, non-WP:RS coverage for having carved a small flute. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. No prejudice against renominating after a little while, due to the low participation in this AfD. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Template Network

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

No sources, not notable, promotional article on a new religious movement (possibly a cult). Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Notable. It doesn't have footnotes, but it has sources cited that establish notability: see the article section The Template Network#Books by outside observers; Spying in Guruland by William Shaw has multiple references to Armin. Searching Google Books gives additional references to Raymond Armin, e.g. Islands of the dawn: the story of alternative spirituality in New Zealand by Robert S. Ellwood (U of Hawaii Press), Alternative religions: a sociological introduction by Stephen Hunt (Ashgate). The article needs a rewrite to remove promo stuff and incorporate criticism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Notable. Agree with --Colapeninsula. Article lacks an account of the history of the movement, the criticism that it has attracted, and a more neutral account of basic beliefs. It was all there, but has been deleted, supposedly by supporters. Sources are difficult to give though, as most of Raymond Armin's writings are unpublished. --Pwesth (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. (actually there's 1 source but it appears to be fake) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seraj Ahmad Salim

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

Appears to be non-notable as there are no significant reliable sources to be found. It has been nominated for speedy and despeedied multiple times by the author, and then deproded by a brand new anon IP after PROD. Appears to be a young not yet notable individual. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete No references in the article to back anything up. No references out there to be found (in English atleast). Nothing in the article sounds notable. There are socks galore trying to save the article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Promotional article with no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Self-promotion, the only given source says nothing about him and there are socks. Per WP:SPIP.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per above. Persistent attempts to remove AFD template from article by suspected socks underscores these concerns. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability per WP:BIO, and the only evidence of his existence I can see online (in English and Arabic) is social media entries and his comments on blogs. Scopecreep (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proctor Community Garden

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

This is a community garden, period. No claim of notability at all. We have pretty low standards of notability here at Knowledge, but surely this does not meet any standard that can be found. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, grand project, wish them well, but not notable. Sorry. Wikipelli 21:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Quek Kim Hock

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He's had 1 fight, none with a first or second tier organization. He clearly fails to meet WP:MMANOT#Fighters. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced article about a fighter with 1 minor bout. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced BLP about a fighter that fails WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Grey

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

Article about a high school and college wrestler. The only sources given are school newsletters and he fails to meet the notability requirements at WP:NSPORTS#College athletes. He won no NCAA titles (one sixth place finish), did not garner national attention, and was not inducted into his sport's hall of fame. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete An excellent high school wrestling record isn't sufficient to pass WP:NSPORTS. Article also lacks any independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. There are no independent sources or signficant coverage of the subject. Mdtemp (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Festival of Sleep Day

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

Delete article about "unofficial" (i.e. made-up) holiday. Although the article does have references, they are all blog postings; there is nothing that even approaches a reliable source. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete All refs are in blogs/wikis/similar. Not notable, no press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Xtreme Fighting

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

Article about a non-notable MMA organization that has no independent sources that provide significant coverage of the promotion. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete The organization exists, but it fails to meet any notability criteria. I found no independent sources that discuss this organization in significant detail. Article fails WP:MMANOT, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete I found nothing that shows this organization is notable and the article lacks independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG as the only sources I could find were fight videos, other wiki articles, event results and little in the way of significant coverage of the promotion by reliable sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Yes it exists but there is no demonstrated notability. Mt king 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaylantice

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

Article is on an IPhone app. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 19:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I believe this should have been PROD'ed. Salvidrim! 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I think the nomination could have been a little more thought-out (iPhone Apps can be notable, that's not a reason to delete it outright.) However, that being said, I haven't been able to find any coverage for this thing, and the article is in terrible shape... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no significant coverage. 7 G-hits, lololol. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence notability under . --joe decker 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete - No coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NSOFT. -- Trevj (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kidlington Royals Football Club

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

This club has never played at a notable level of football (generally assumed to be those levels at which a club is eligible to enter the FA Cup) and also fails the general notability guideline as it does not seem to have been covered in reliable independent sources (all I could find online was one brief match report) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete: as above --Greenmaven (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New Moomin

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

A proposed deletion of this article was averted with an edit summary stating that this series passes RPRGM, but RPRGM is an essay, not a guideline. The relevant guideline is the general notability guideline, and with only two reliable, secondary sources that together provide very little information with which to populate the article, this television series fails that guideline. I have not been successful in finding any more reliable, secondary sources for this article. Neelix (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Snow Keep per encyclopedic sources, one of the sources is a well-known encyclopedia, and that should be sufficient to suggest that the subject is eligible for Knowledge. The anime is also included in other Japanese encyclopedias, such as 漫画家・アニメ作家人名事典 and 日本映画人名事典. Let's add a notable director, a notable production company, a notable staff of animators. It is also noteworthy that at the time it was the cover-subject of Japanese magazines, sign that additional off-line printed sources surely exist. Cavarrone (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Since according to the article it's a remake of the 1969 series, a merge with Moomin (1969 TV series) could work if there aren't enough sources to satisfy people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a notable enough show. This was different than the previous series, so I'm against merging it. Keep it as its own separate article. Since it was never released in English, finding English sources might be hard. But if those who can read Japanese say sources in that language are fine, so be it. Dream Focus 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep. It's virtually never right to simply delete a TV adaptation/spinoff of an independently notable work; the options are merger to the parent work or retaining the spinout article, and that's not an AFD issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stacey Muruthi

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable cricketer who fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN and by extension WP:ATH. While he may have had a lengthy club career, this is no claim to notability. He has played for Singapore, but the matches he played in were at a minor level. A search for sources brings up very little in the way of things which establish notability per WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Has been outstanding for Singapore and played many times in the ICC Trophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Personal preferences are not reasons to keep an article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - the category, Category:Singaporean cricketers is then funny. you have a long list of persons, none of whom, are born in Singapore, yet the best S'pore-born cricketer does not qualify. perhaps they should not be called Singaporean cricketers

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Change the category from 'Singaporean cricketers' to 'Singapore-based cricketers' since they are not Singaporeans.

Comment - Who says Stacey Muruthi is the best Singaporean cricketer? That's your opinion and isn't based in cited sources. I don't even know why I'm bothering to ask that. Fact of the matter is those cricketers have played a major format of the game and have played for Singapore, regardless of where they were born, they are able, as Singaporean citizens to represent Singapore (three were subjects of the British Empire). You haven't actually provided a valid reason why the article should stay, simply stating first off he was "outstanding" and now conjuring up some argument about where players are born. There's a simple reason he doesn't qualify for an article, which I took time to explain on your talk page. Evidently you have chosen to ignore that. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ after making a comment. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Further comment Category:Singaporean cricketers is a long list?!?! Try Category:English cricketers! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Muruthi may not be the best, but he is certainly one of the best, according to Singapore media. As for non-Singapore-born cricketers, there should at least be citations that they have taken up Singapore citizenships to qualify as Singaporean cricketers. And since Singaporean Muruthi does not qualify as Singaporean cricketers more than yet-to-be-proven non-Singapore-born 'Singaporean' cricketers, a workaround will be to remove him as a Singaporean cricketers but as someone who has contributed to Singapore cricket. We leave for another time to debate whether the no-citation non-Singaproe-born cricketers qualify as Singaporean cricketers or should they have been Singapore-based cricketers. DragTian (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Further comment So my question is why the non-Singapore-born cricketers who have played some matches at a higher level qualify to be Singaporean cricketers when they are not even Singaporeans, the very basis of eligibility to be Singaporean cricketers? DragTian (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Why do you keep going on about nationality and how "Muruthi does not qualify as a Singaporean cricketer": it's not a case of whether he qualifies as a Singaporean cricketer (this is not the issue), it's whether he qualifies full stop as a notable cricketer. As I've told you time and time again, he doesn't: No first-class, List A or Twenty20 appearances. No appearances in an ICC Trophy final. No appearances in World Cricket Division Five or higher. I'm not sure how much more simply than that I can put it. This isn't about nationality and who qualifies to play for whom, it simply boils down WP:CRIN and WP:ATH guidelines, neither of which this article fulfills. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply - I can only agree that the list of so called Singaporean cricketers qualified as notable cricketers in wikipedia but not as Singaporean cricketers because they are not Singaporeans in the first place. As for Muruthi, I have suggested a workaround that he be taken out as Singaporean cricketers although he is a Singaporean, born and bred, but not consider notable in wikipedia, so his entry be kept as someone who has contributed to cricket in Singapore. The classification of 'Singaporean cricketers' is certainly not true becuase the rest do not qualify, "Classification: By nationality: Singaporean" http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Singaporean_cricketers

Will you agree that they be removed as Singaporean cricketers? No true-blue Singaporean can accept that. They can be called Cricketers who have represented Singapore though. DragTian (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply In short, the category, Singaporean cricketers should be deleted because no Singaporean cricketers qualified to be notable in wikipedia. DragTian (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - *sighs* This discussion isn't about Category:Singaporean cricketers, it's about the notability of Muruthi, for the fourth or fifth time. WP:CRIC is the place to go to suggest changes, not AfD discussion pages. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply Alright. The Category:Singaporean cricketers which is wrong is a separate issue. As for Muruthi, we can keep the entry as someone who has contributed to cricket in Singapore, not as a notable cricketer according to wikipedia standards. DragTian (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep The references from the Straits Times and others are enough to satisfy the general notability criteria in my opinion. Really, this deletion is an indication of the cricket project's pathetic old school attitude towards cricketers who play for non test nations - this guy played 81 times for his country, 25 of which were in officially ICC sanctioned internationals and people argue that he isn't notable when they'd defend to the death the notability of J Smith who played one FC match in which he didn't bat or bowl for Lord Snooty's XI in 1823. It's ridiculous. Also, Comment can the person removing the Singaporean cricketers category from players who play for Singapore please stop? Per the cricket projects usual practice, that category is for anyone who has played for Singapore. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Limiting player articles to those outlined in WP:CRIN was a decision reached by cricket project members a couple of years ago following on from the Basanta Regmi AfD. Whether it's "pathetic old school attitude" toward non-FC/LA/T20 cricketers, meh. But it was a decision reached by members of the project, and endorsed by yourself Andrew: "Mostly fine, but I'm not sure about making all ICC Trophy tournaments notable - that's a lot more players being made notable than if just WCL3-5 was made notable (up to 50% of those players are already probably notable anyway!). Prior to 2005, I'd just stick with the final of the ICC Trophy/World Cup Qualifier. Since 2005 it's been a List A/ODI tournament anyway, so isn't an issue. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)" Under current guidelines it doesn't qualify, the first source is a clipping of a friendly against Pakistan, and doesn't do much to establish notability, while the other requires a log in. The place for changes to WP:CRIN is the projects talk page, in a sport heaped in tradition, yes I stick to the letter with it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Any further comments going on about categories I shall remove, as this discussion isn't about bloody categories (got a problem with categories, go to WP:CRIC's talk page), nor has it anything to do with my personal opinion on teams over reliance on expats. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Also only vote once, you have voted at the top of the discussion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Ok. So many of my comments are removed. I changed above vote to comment. I think Cricket projects should go back to redefine everything. Fine. You don't want to talk about categories and your expats vs locals thing. It is like limiting players who have played in football World Cup as notable, while players like Ryan Giggs, the most decorated footballer in English football history, cannot make it because he play for Wales, a small and weak country, which could never reach the World Cup. DragTian (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: My participation in that previous debate was attempting to seek a compromise. I'm pretty sure that I'm on record as stating that I think all players to have played in official internationals are inherently notable, as is the case on Knowledge for soccer. The simple facts here are that we know much more about this guy than several FC players from the 19th century. The guy played 81 times for his country and he still isn't notable? And a guy who played a single FC match in the 19th century for whom we have no information is? Seriously? Am I the only person who thinks that's ludicrous? Anyway, there's really no point arguing this here, and there certainly isn't at WP:Cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Short answer: no. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Short reply: To which question... Andrew nixon (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep: From WP:CRIN – "Judge notability by reference to a source that makes clear it is discussing a major player in historical rather than statistical terms." It strikes me that this chap is probably historically significant in terms of developing the sport of cricket in Singapore: 45 years and all. Johnlp (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The sources in the article demonstrate a pass of the general notability guideline, which is not overridden by any local consensus at a Wikiproject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion: Keep the article. DragTian (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Final Comment: Can this discussion be closed now? Thanks to every one who have participated in the discussion. Your views are much appreciated. DragTian (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: You don't get to decide that. See WP:CLOSEAFD. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep One of those occasional cricketers that fails (IMHO) CRIN but passes GNG, which is usually a higher bar, but which in any case has far greater weight. --Dweller (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Aileen Soares

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

The person does not seem notable at all, there is a large number of teachers with similar profile. The references include a couple of newspaper articles which, though reliable, does not mean the person should have an encyclopedic article. The article was created by user Dsouzaron, who is blocked due to sockpuppetry. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: this is also covered by speedy deletion criteria A7, with the only instance where notability is asserted being the last line which is not referenced (atleast in-line) and another claim about excellent results (which seems to be a bit weasel description). I think it should be deleted. If the person is really notable, it will be recreated eventually with the actual details that establish notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

True, I didn't mark it for Speedy Delete for same reason; last two lines qualify for something but they need description with reliable references to make the person notable. And since the creator is blocked, I doubt there will be anyone working to expand it. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep. This woman's achievements, which might be taken as run-of-the-mill in some parts of the world, earn her mentions in the Express Tribune beyond those cited in the article. Here for instance. If the press in Pakistan thinks she's notable, who are we to argue? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your comment and I am inclining towards a keep. But apart from a few sources I cannot find substantial info about her to expand the article (the only details mentioned in sources are already in the article). Still not sure what to do with this one. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete - it appears that this is a local news story, but I'm not certain. Do the sources have Pakistan-wide readership? Bearian (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Express Tribune has country-wide readership, other two sources do not. This source also mentions her achievement. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO1E. And "the second Catholic female Pakistani 50-year schoolteaching veteran" seems more like trivia than an encyclopedic accomplishment to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have reconsidered my initial request for deletion and believe the article should be kept after expansion and addition of reliable material. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 18:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. So, someone canvassed all of the editors who participated in the last AfD, and surprisingly we've ended up with the same result. Someone intelligent once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". I would strongly suggest that if this article is nominated for deletion again in the future, that the previous AfD participants are not canvassed. If you'd like to know when the article is nominated for deletion, put it on your watchlist. This type of cacophonous discussion is not helpful. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

John Márquez

AfDs for this article:

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

City councilman (a position that is not inherently notable in itself) that failes WP:Politician. Sources are all entirely local in scope or do not provide a substantial level of coverage. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, however each keep vote was either an comment on the nominator rather than the article or pointed to the vague notion that sources exist without referring to any. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Keep the nominator is wrong, this guy has several mentions in the San Francisco Chronicle a major national newspaper in addition to the Contra Costa Times a newspaper for a major metropolitan area. He was the first hispanic for the city council of a major port city Richmond, California of over 100,000 people and served as vice mayor, and in fact is one of the longest serving politicians with over 23 years on the council. Also this is not your average city council, they get national press coverage all the time for being a controversial green party leaning city even in Cuban newspapers, this is a speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Exactly. "Several mentions" and significant coverage are two different things. And your other points are interesting but don't provide inherent notability (indeed, vice mayor is hardly ever a notable position). Please give specific sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several mentions that are significant coverage, such as an extended quote as an authority on the subject, and other SF Chronicle sources in the article and also noted on the talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, please look of when a speedy keep is appropriate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

- - - - When an individual deems fit to give his opinion is what makes anyone's comment appropriate.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There actually are criteria for a "speedy keep", see WP:Speedy keep. None of them apply here. MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it is warranted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately your opinion is not what determined the speedy keep criteria, which I still encourage you to read.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree that LWC could align his arguments better with WP:SK criteria, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because LWC doesn't make such an argument, that WP:SK criteria are not applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure I follow, you're saying it's wrong to assume that his speedy keep is not applicable just because he doesn't argue in a way that speedy keep applies?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The factors noted in the previous opinion do not appear to have resulted in any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the individual. It's true that the subject has been mentioned in numerous news stories, some in reliable sources, some even in reliable sources independent of the subject. But those are in stories that focus on other matters. Many of the articles are behind paywalls, so my review is certainly not comprehensive. But the snippets of paywalled articles, and the full-text of the free ones, all give rise to the same conclusion—this person hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage. Since it does not appear that the person meets any of the de facto criteria, I don't see any policy-based rationale to keep. _matic 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, the coverage is more than trivial and there is a lot of it. Being behind paywalls is not an excuse to delete.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Which coverage is "more than trivial"? I didn't say that being behind a paywall is in any way a rationale for deletion—it's obviously not (likewise coverage that isn't online at all is sufficient to establish notability). However, the snippets available on the paywalled articles strongly suggest the level of coverage and what they suggest is that it's not significant. _matic 14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Well since trivial means of "little importance" and he has been used as an expert by a national newspapers over decades, I find that to be beyond trivial. He is not mentioned in passing, and WP:N#Significant Coverage states that the subject need be the main topic, he is not mentioned in passing but as part of the subject in general in most articles and quite often. There are dozens of articles on the Chronicle alone here, and others for the SJ Mercury, Berk Daily Planet, and Oakland Tribune, far from Richmond.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    - You're still just linking to searches for sources, not actual specific ones.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Last nomination the nominator nominated a lot of these articles all at once, and most of them were notable, with the rest no one really spending too much time with. Is there anything about the guy other than mentioning him running for office, and briefly quoting him at times when he was in office? Did he do any interviews? All my searches show a lot of paywalls, so hard to know if he got significant coverage or not. Dream Focus 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep It's true that he is not an obvious keep per WP:POLITICIAN; city councilman is not an automatically notable position. However I believe he may fulfill WP:BIO. He has received coverage in multiple sources, not just his local paper (the Contra Costa Times) but three regional papers (the San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News). --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The coverage in those papers seems to be limited. As bay area publications they cover the politics of more minor cities, but not to any extent that is beyond routine or trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Although limited it is not trivial and BIO states that a lot of limited coverage adds up to routine coverage, since he is out of office but still in the papers that is good evidence of this subject having lasting encyclopedic significance.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    - I'm not really sure where you're finding that in BIO. But regardless, a one sentence mention is trivial, not simply limited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete: per nom and per rationale in first AfD. Not seeing how a minor city councilman passes WP:POLITICIAN. Would also note that there has been canvassing of this AfD p b p 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also was a vice mayor and this is not a minor city, it has over 100,000 people, which is the standard definition of a large city.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing? In fairness, it should be noted that Luciferwildcat notified EVERYONE who commented on the previous AfD, regardless of how they voted. The exception was you, Purplebackpack; as you can see at my talk page, he asked me to notify you because of your mutual agreement to stay away from each other. I declined but I said you would undoubtedly find it anyhow, as you promptly did. Also please note that we all agree the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN; that's not at issue. The question is whether he has enough independent coverage to pass WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not real canvassing to a full extent. That being said, when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just good policy and although not required it is generally recommended that all editors of an article be notified of a nomination, since that was already done the last time, I figured it might be better to simply notify those that did decide to comment on that occasion. Furthermore it is not canvassing to any extent, you should get a better understanding of what canvassing is. Notifying the editors is actually usually the nominator's (your) job, should you choose to accept it, but someone else doing it is never canvassing. Canvassing is selectively notifying random people or people likely to support or oppose a deletion in order to pad your argument and weigh down the votes. As I support keeping and most of the people I notified decided they thought it should be deleted it is really an illogical and impossible determination that I could be canvassing in anyway.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I fear that again rescue-tagging it will get us in the same bucket of syrup as last time. p b p 18:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yaksar, "the clearer consensus" you were "hoping for", being you wanted people who agree with you. You shouldn't just keep nominating something for deletion until you get the results you want. That's basically gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

DreamFocus, let's not get personal - and let's get our facts right. Yaksar was not the nominator last time and I don't think they even participated in that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. Their statement "when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping for." He didn't like the results last time, so wanted to try the AFD again. Doesn't matter its a different person nominating it. When something is kept, it shouldn't just keep being nominated every few months when nothing has changed, no matter who is doing it. And those who participated previously should be known about any reruns of course. Make more sense just to open the old AFD, so people wouldn't have to show up and repeat what they already said. Dream Focus 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, last time you had a large number of articles nominated at once, and no one wanted to waste time sorting through all of them. Don't blame the Article Rescue Squadron for that. You had other people participating that weren't part of the ARS. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
And all those people voted "delete". To a man, everyone who voted "Keep" in the previous discussion was involved with the ARS or rescuing articles in some way. Had the ARS stayed home on that AfD, the article would almost certainly have been deleted. I expected the nominations to be non-controversial, which they would've been if the ARS hadn't come in guns blazing. I also resent the apparent implication you're making that Yaksar and I are engaged in some sort of canvassing, possibly with each other p b p 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I challenge your assertion that everyone who wasn't "part of ARS" voted delete, and that the keep votes were from Article Rescue people "to a man". The discussion itself contradicts you. There were actually four "Keep" votes at that discussion. They were: Carrite (the first commenter at the discussion, long before any rescue appeal was made, who voted Procedural Keep on all of your mass nominations); LuciferWildcat as article author; Unscintillating; and Northamerica1000. (Not sure how to count Dream Focus since they struck out their "keep" vote.) So are you contending that Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 only came to that discussion "with guns blazing" and voted "keep" because of a rescue appeal? I doubt if you have any evidence of that and I think you owe them an apology. I often see Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 participating in discussions here, and their opinions are considered and balanced. And anyhow that's not how ARS works; the idea is to improve the article, not to rush to the discussion and vote "keep!". As for people who are "involved with rescuing articles in some way", I will happily claim that description; I rescue a lot of articles and am proud of it (see my userpage). But I voted "weak delete" on that first discussion. I have changed to "weak keep" on this nomination because the article has been improved and has much better sourcing now. Please Assume Good Faith that we all base our opinions on the actual state of the article and what we can find about the subject in research - rather than some preconceived bias toward "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a list of members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Neither of them is on it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The main point is that both AfDs, the article was nominated for rescue, and in both of those cases, the rescue template was used improperly in that it was used to get more keep votes rather than actually fix the article. I, for one, believe it should be removed from the Rescue list p b p 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Lucifer wasn't the article author p b p 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. He didn't originally write the article, but he expanded it threefold and became its principal defender. As for the Rescue list, I agree that it would be improper to use the Rescue template to try to recruit "keep" votes, but that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case - or in most cases. It may be a misconception on Lucifer's part, or on your part, or both, to think that a Rescue template means "come to this AfD discussion and vote keep!" It doesn't. It means "Consider improving this article!" and as such it can be added to any article. The Rescue Squadron folks may respond by trying to improve the article, or they may ignore it. I have never seen any evidence that they react to a template by simply voting "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This would indicate a widespread belief that tagging/listing something for rescue was used to canvass for "Keep" votes p b p 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Always a small number of people claiming that nonsense, but most usually see reason and agree the opposite. Been through this so many times, many don't bother responding to those things, or just scan through and don't read it all, it just long and never ending nonsense. And in that particular discussion, it was determined that the template on the main article was a problem, while having an Article Rescue List was just fine. It wasn't eliminated based on unproven canvassing concerns. Dream Focus 15:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

- When I see an item on the rescue list I try and find sources to improve it, and sometimes vote but I vote both keep and delete depending on the topic. When I added this entry I did so in the hopes other edits might expand the references. It is unprecedented for another editor to remove or call for the removal of a rescue and it is futile much like a single editor demanding an end to an Afd.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment If the result here is leaning toward "delete", may I suggest instead a redirect to Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) ? --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if Marquez is covered or mentioned there p b p 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As the nominator I see no issue with that redirect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Appears from this vantage to be sufficiently notable. SF Chronicle etc. are sufficient. Newspaper mentions last week of him being named to a San Pablo oversight board for the defunct redevelopment authority. I am moreover amused that the "John Marquez" crime novels have the fictional policeman in Richmond, CA. Collect (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep I wish I could see what was behind all those paywalls to be certain. Being covered in multiple newspapers, and not just brief political announcements for his local area, seems to indicate notability to me. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything you see on highbeam? I gotz one of those free accounts there now.--Milowent • 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I signed up for the second batch, but don't have one yet, so I just have to trust others that say they have read things. Dream Focus 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe in Trust, but verify, even if the "verify" is minimal—nobody's given a citation (not requiring a web link) for any source claimed to provide more than "just brief political announcements".

I have now reviewed more than 200 hits in Factiva. Many are duplicates. The vast majority are quotes relating to routine council and committee business. What is remarkable is how little else there is. When he's described, it's never with any details beyond "considered a leader in the Latino community" or "incumbent" or similar descriptors. Even when mentioning legislation co-sponsored by him (local ordinances are not notable, by the way), the coverage never has provided any meaningful information about the individual—his background, his accomplishments, his politics, even—beyond the most basic coverage of his position. If there's any example of numerous coverage in numerous articles demonstrating non-notability, this is it. _matic 04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty clearly non-notable p b p 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If its "pretty clearly" the case you are a horrible advocate for your position. The honest truth is that Marquez appears to have gotten more coverage than the average city council member. City council members, at least of similar-sized cities, would usually would not meet WP:GNG. Marquez has stuck around long around, and served in enough roles, ran for mayor, etc., which led to the no consensus result in the first AfD. Not a shocking result. Its not like we don't articles on other city council members lying around, see, e.g., Mary Pat Clarke, Adrian Schrinner, etc. I'm not saying whether we should have them, I don't care about OTHERSTUFF, I haven't voted, I'm just noting why debates like this one get gummed up.--Milowent • 19:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Which would explain why I didn't start this lol... p b p 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's always much easier fruit out there than stuff like this one.--Milowent • 19:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If anyone could link or point to actual specific articles they feel would count as acceptable significant coverage it would really be helpful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes. Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not particularly relevant, as a) John Marquez isn't Maria Viramontes, and b) Maria Viramontes was deemed both at AfD and DRV to be non-notable p b p 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your say it is not particularly relevant, but at that page you mention "some shmo who served on a City Council in a medium-sized town", so it is relevant. Also, WP:GNG is relevant. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think mere "votes" that are entirely arbitrary and contradict policy and precedent should be given their due low weight by the closing admin.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that !votes without evidence and contrary to the guidelines should be given reduced weight by the closing admin. For example, it is not helpful if a !vote looks at nine reliable sources with significant coverage and says "not seeing a hit on WP:GNG". Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, by the looks of it you're trying to turn this request for some actual sources into a discussion of edits in a totally different discussion. I've seen you try to derail discussions before, please stop.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

~~Oh, and I thought you wanted to talk about sources.~~ Time for me to leave here. But before I do, here is what I have found so far:

John Marquez, Accent Advocate, October 29, 2009

Prop 209 could hit hard in Richmond, Contra Costa Times, October 31, 1996

, Officials meet with public over immigratin raids, Delfin Vigil, San Francisco Chronicle, 29-01-2007, access date 17-04-2012*

Ex-Richmond official files FPPC complaint, Contra Costa Times, February 4, 2009

City Official Forced to Quit Settles With Richmond, Benjamin Pimentel, 13-03-1999, access date 16-04-2012

"Emotions boil in Richmond", Oakland Tribune, June 22, 2005

Richmond to declare state of emergency to curb spate of violence, Chuck Squatriglia, San Francisco Chronicle, 16-06-2005, access date 16-04-2012

"Pinole redevelopment successor agency to hold first meeting", San Jose Mercury News, April 2, 2012

City of Richmond website John Márquez profile

Voter Information Pamphlet, City of Richmond, 2006

Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle staff writer (October 21, 2004). "Campaign 2004 -- Richmond. Voters have chance to set new course. 5 of 9 council seats open -- city mired in financial problems". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-10. John Marquez, a retired labor standards investigator and 14-year councilman who lost his seat in 2001 during an unsuccessful run for mayor...

Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer (October 30, 2001). "'Teflon Don' comes back in Richmond. Reese trying again to be kingmaker". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-10. Two years after an FBI probe into vote-buying at Richmond City Hall... Another mayoral hopeful, City Councilman John Marquez, chose a campaign theme of a toilet bowl over the slogan, "Flush the @#! out of City Hall.

Márquez's Statement of Qualifications, for the General Election to be held on November 4, 2008 – from the City of Richmond website

"Final county-by-county election results. Contra Costa County". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. November 6, 1997. Retrieved 2011-12-10. (w)Irma Anderson(i). 7,605. (w)John Marquez(i). 7,414. (w)Richard Griffin(i) 7,074.

"Juan Márquez" Richmond concejal

Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

- I'll need to look through them all when I'm somewhere with a stronger internet connection. But cherrypicking 3 random ones so far has not been promising. A one sentence mention of the subject is not at all significant coverage. It would help if you could specify which you consider to actually provide significant coverage (as in something more than his name on a list or a one line quote about him).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Ok, let's start from the top.

The site doesn't load, but from what I can tell it's the newspaper of a local community college where he worked, so it's not really independent (nor does it show the type of greater coverage we're looking to find)
Can't load with my connection, but if I've correctly identified the article at another source then it seems to just be short mention with no significant coverage (please correct me if it is more in depth)
Only mentioned in one sentence with no real substantial information along with other council member; not significant coverage.
This one the coverage is more substantial, but it's from a local political blog, not one of the wider papers referred to above.
One quote from him, no real coverage.
City site, not independent
City's voter info pamphlet, not independent
Candidate described in one sentence in an article about new city council candidates. We find this type of election coverage at this level unacceptable to prove notability for candidates for much higher offices, let alone a city council position.
Just one sentence about his campaign slogan, not significant coverage obviously.
His candidate statement on the city's site, not independent.
Nothing but the numbers from the election.
That just means "Richmond Councilor" in Spanish. Also his name seems to have changed to Juan. Is it a source or are you just trying to carpet bomb with sources regardless of whether they show notability?

--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

- - - Unscintillating, please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Claiming that something is notable by mass-dumping a bunch of questionably relevant links isn't helpful. It was repudiated in Viramontes and several other articles where you've done this; I hope it's repudiated here as well p b p 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
@Yaksar, BIO states that in cases where the coverage may not be significant but the mentions are numerous, that indeed they add up to significant, and it's pretty clear that this is the case for this gentleman. I would also note that nothing has been dumped here, they items were hand picked and quotes added, most sources are included in the article itself and their usage is self evident.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- In what way does it say that?--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I will assume good faith and that Luciferwildcat is simply not a careful reader. WP:BASIC states

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

This obviously contemplates that there is "substantial coverage", "trivial coverage" and various levels in between. To spell this out in more details:

Substantial coverage in one or a couple of sources is sufficient to establish notability.
Trivial coverage—even if in multiple sources—may not be sufficient to establish notability.
Coverage in between "substantial" and "trivial" may demonstrate notability if there are enough.

For the subject under consideration here, nobody has demonstrated anything beyond the most trivial—nothing in any level of detail beyond the most basic of narratives about official acts that would be reported as a matter of course. _matic 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer me this, how is it we have so many statements about this man sourced if the coverage is less then trivial? If there are multiple statements beyond simply party affiliation and election-win-loss then trivial the coverage it is not, and since there are multiple statements and article sections cited by various sources from major newspapers, the coverage is multiple.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the many sourced statements about this man? Many of the facts in the article are sourced to the most local / non-independent of sources that don't confer notability to someone even if covered in detail. _matic 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Right so the Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Berkeley Daily Planet, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle are "local" for Richmond, but that does not make them unreliable nor independent. They cover all sorts of topics but the only situation in which there are not independent is in a scenario where Newspaper X is being used to cite article on Newspaper X's writer Y, that is not the case. And I refer to the statements sourced to the various independent third party sources such as the Chronicle.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But the coverage in all the sources we've discussed (or at least I've tried to examine above) has been trivial mentions. I feel like the issue is that you've created this concept that a bunch of trivial coverage combines into real coverage, but that's not actually written anywhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and I find that the all the cited content in the article is not trivial, it may not be substantial coverage but the multiple independent sources combined seem to demonstrate notability here. This is a figure you would regularly read about in the paper and I feel there are more sources hidden in the pre-internet era and wikipedia is the only place we could really aggregate it all for the sake of history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional resources from several more newspapers,here LuciferWildCat

Even more here at the Berkeley Daily Planet and even more here at the East Bay Express]LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There added even more content now.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fortunately for the rational construction of an encyclopedia , the GNG guideline says itself that it is not universally applicable; it's the general guideline, not the universal guideline. A mayor of Richmond would I think be notable; a city council member not. There's no clear line on size--the dubious range for mayor in the past has been between 40 and 100,000, The range for council depends on the relative importance of the council as well as the size of the city, but we've deleted may under 600,000 -- and kept some also--this is an area where we are not particular consistent. I've always said for a person to be notable they have to be notable for something, and I don't think he is--every mention is trivial. Most of the additional ones are merely a list of who voted for what on a particular measure; I tend to take a very flexible view to what is significant coverage, but I have not yet found one that is significant coverage by even my standard. The solution to problems like this are local wikis. (Bongo asked me to come here, saying he pretty much knew what I'd say, and he's right: I do say this consistently about local politicians.) DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue about Cinco de Mayo speaking time is a "who voted for what" issue? Also; So you were canvassed?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Have you read WP:CANVASS? The criteria are: scale, message, audience, and transparency—which do you think was breached? _matic 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I should correct DGG's summary of my posting on his page. I said "no idea of your views". Generally, I view DGG as an encyclopedia builder—that is to say, and editor with a strong preference for the inclusion of encyclopedic content. Generally where we disagree is when I opine to delete and he opines to keep. If we have interacted on local politics before I do not recall the event or the outcome. _matic 00:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I do believe this counts as canvassing. Things not going your way, so you called someone to ask them to join us, and they just happened to vote the way you did. DGG has voted delete in similar AFDS as this one hasn't he? Have you both voted delete together in a previous AFD for a politician? Dream Focus 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bongo, yes I have and the request from one single commentator definitely would seem to fit the bill for votestaking, quite red handed, and also more subtly I would say Campaigning and Stealth canvassing IMO.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat, Dream Focus, either refactor / strike your comments or start an ANI or whatever. Either your reading of WP:CANVAS is wrong or mine is—and I'm not the one throwing around accusations of violations of behavioral guidelines. _matic 02:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW this seems to be a better filter for AfD discussions where DGG and I have both participated (don't know if it's comprehensive, but seems as though it should be). The only time I see us having converged on a political subject (I'm not claiming to have done a comprehensive review) is here, where DGG opined to keep an article I nominated for deletion.

More specifically,

with respect to the votestacking claim, see DGG's AfD stats, which show that his "keep" opinions are more than twice as frequent as his "deletes";
with respect to the stealth canvassing claim, WP:CANVAS defines "stealth canvassing" as "contacting users off-wiki", which was not the case here, where I left a note on DGG's User talk page (which is specifically contrasted to stealth canvassing). DGG, by the way, is the 7th most watch user, so "stealthy" is hardly the way to describe posting there. _matic 07:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bongomatic must be perma-banned for this horrible canvassing. LOL. just kidding. I'll say this -- DGG's opinion is well-respected by most everyone, but inviting him to an AfD where you already know its one of his areas where he'll vote delete, in a drama-fest AfD like this, is going to get some flack. The closing admin can take this into account while appreciating DGG's thoughtful input.--Milowent • 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said above and in my note to DGG, I was not aware of DGG's view on this area. _matic 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to transparency: If someone asks me to look at an article or a discussion, if I comment there I always say so, and say who asked me (unless it's one of the random RfC notices).I think I have also made it clear numerous times that they should not anticipate whatever it is they might want me to, & I think I've proved it many times. I don't deliberately go out of my way to be unpredictable, but I use my own standards for deciding what is appropriate to say. Therefore, I do not consider notifying me of a discussion as canvassing: if its a field I am interested in, I am likely to get there anyway--especially if it's about deletion; if it isn't something I'd otherwise pay attention to, I'll respond if I think it interesting or I have something I want to say. Canvassing is notifying multiple people known to be on the same side ,and Bongo did not do that.

As for my opinion, I don't comment to add to the vote count--I comment in the hope of convincing anyone open to listening, or of giving my own perspective for what it may be worth. What I would have to say is as relevant or not on what you may think of its merits, no matter how I got there. If you don't agree with me & think you've answered my objections, my coming here hasn't hurt you--it's enabled you to better defend your position. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete DGG pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Yes, he exists, we can certainly verify that, but what has he actually done? What's special or notable about him or something with which he's been involved? SÆdon 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment, it's in the article, cited, and more than trivial.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Ample sourcing provided above to demonstrate encyclopedic worth of this subject per GNG. Carrite (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dietmar Moews

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

Article about a non-notable person written by the person himself. Sources used are not reliable. Blatant self-aggrandizing. The person is described in the leade of an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of April 15, 2012 as an example of the type of kooky person drawn to the Piratenpartei in Germany.
The article was written by Moews himself (via AFC, then as Kiseidep), and is nothing but a monument to vainglory and CoI-editing based on ridiculous and unsourced claims. The account Kiseidep (which is short for “Kinderseiten der Epochen”, yet another of his strange video channels) has gone to great lengths to play this game in de:WP too. Then Kiseidep was blocked in de:WP. Note the following attempted article creations by Kiseidep & Company in the German Knowledge:

Dietmar Moews, deleted various times, discussions from December 2005 and April 2008
Neue Sinnlichkeit / neue sinnlichkeit: deleted various times, see discussion from 2008 with Moews' sidekick Tomski aka Tomskiberlin, who also comments in his video channels
Not to speak of his edits in Springe, Alphons Silbermann and his famous institute, the de:Asz Alphons Silbermann Zentrum - Institut für europäische Massenkommunkations- und Bildungsforschung.

In the German Knowledge, this article has been deleted for complete lack of notability. I realize that the standards here are different. But content wise, the article cannot stand. Complete rewrite based on reliable sources by editors without CoI. Or delete. Minderbinder-de (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

please delete because of the reasons Minderbinder listed above - I also thought about a deletion request after reading the FAZ article on Moews and remember the discussions in ther German WP. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article from 2006 about a German artist that reads like pompous self-promoting. WP:SPIP. Given sources are mostly not verifiable. A search on Google News with "Dietmar Moews" -dietmarmoews.com -youtube.com gives a link to an article in a german newspaper from yesterday where he was described as a Crackpot with a wikipedia article . The newspaper has the second largest circulation in Germany.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete for rather substantial reasons given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
Neutral It would appear to me that the article in the FAZ linked to above goes some way towards establishing notability as a crank. It is basically all about Moews and the reaction to him from people in the political party of which he's a member. Obviously, 95% of the current article should go, but perhaps a stub concentrating on his "kookyness" might be feasible. However, at this point there's only the FAZ article, whereas GNG requires multiple sources, so I am not !voting "keep" at this point. Note, hoever, that the current article claims much coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, this is all pre-Internet and difficult to verify nowadays. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominic Borghese

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

Again a one sentence article that does not pass WP:CRIME. Also mentioned in Gambino crime family. Ben Ben (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom - no big impact shown on a Google News search. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete he does not pass WP:CRIME. --Vic49 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bartolomeo Vernace

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

Another one sentence article that does not pass WP:CRIME. He is already mentioned in Gambino crime family. Ben Ben (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - guy was once part of a Gambino leadership panel, for what it's worth. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - nothing in google books or NY Times on him. Daily News lists him as a capo who killed two guys in a bar over a spilled drink. Does not really meet significance criteria - anyone can be a capo these days. Rogermx (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete he does not pass WP:CRIME. --Vic49 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. a distinct entity (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DAEWOO International

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

Daewoo already exists. West Eddy (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they really about the same topic? If so, then ~~Speedy Delete~~ per A10 --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Both say they were founded in 1967 as Daewoo Industrial. I added a speedy delete, but someone removed it believing that they were two distinct companies. West Eddy (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are two distinct companies, Daewoo International is cited in Daewoo. Keep and Move to Daewoo International is my new !vote, DAEWOO shoudn't be in all caps, or should it? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Daewoo International is listed as a subsidiary of POSCO (and that corresponds to the information in this article). The Daewoo article lists it as a former constituent company of the Daewoo Group. The complexity of the company history and restructuring suggests that there is value in keeping this as separate article and certainly a redirect to either POSC or Daewoo would be unhelpful and confusing. --AJHingston (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep- Lose the ALLCAPS per MOS, retitle Daewoo International (currently a redirect to Daewoo)or Daewoo International Corporation (which is redlinked in Daewoo as one of six surviving named subsidiaries, 4 of which have articles, one other redlink), and abbreviated Daewoo International Corp. in other articles. Dru of Id (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I may have added to the confusion when I speedy deleted a version as copyvio - and then created a redirect to DAEWOO. Besides, even if this were to be deleted as an insufficiently notable company, the title should be redirected somewhere - The new owner, POSCO, may be a valid target. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Although it looks like an advertisement at present, it could be improved. Biscuittin (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And it has been improved. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Article is now at Daewoo International per a move request. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Toothiologist

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism pertaining to a single sketch by an Irish comedian role 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a REAL PROFESSION and I have given enough references so you can check the very existence of the professional at stake. There is no other English word to describe this alternative medical profession other than calling him a Toothiologist.

And YES, the irony is that the term was first used in a sketch of an Irish stand-up comedian. This however shows the irony of this professional.

So is there a "better" term to describe alternative medicine therapists working in the dental field? I challenge you to find me a better one that this one! --DeTandarts (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source and the other two references provided don't mention this word once. I have checked Google and can find nothing substantial to show that this is in any way a valid term. If this is a real profession, then there should be information about it easily accessible. Please provide it. -- role 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is a reliable source as to the fact that Dara O'Brian uses the term, and considering the fact you can't find it anywhere else, it's the first use of it! Reliable enough.

On the other point, you haven't answered my question: What would a better name be for a toothiologist, as my references clearly show that this is an existing profession (unfortunatly) ? Give me another name for an alternative medical therapist working in the field of dentistry, not being a dentist.... Preferably in one word!

--DeTandarts (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So what you're actually saying is that you have made Dara O'Brian's term fit a profession that you have identified exists? Because Jacob Brandsma doesn't even use it himself. Knowledge is not for things you made up. -- role 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with those "practitioners" is also that they try to hide / blend in, using terms like "dental practitioner" (this is how Jacob calls himself... having no dental background). Which in a matter of fact they're ABSOLUTELY NOT and it only confuses the general public. The bottom line is unfortunately that there is no better term describing these people and their activities as "Toothiologists" ....and I'm sorry I didn't come up with that word but Dara O' Brian did. --DeTandarts (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't "made anything up" and I'm not writing any fiction here. The term exists, is clearly used and describes perfectly a profession which I've showed to exist. The one making things up is a "dental practitioner" without dental background, and I asume there must be more of these....errrh, yeah, again, how do you suggest to call it differently than a Toothiologist: I can't find anything else putting a name to it.--DeTandarts (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument can be easily settled with the following: We keep "Toothiologist" for "alternative medicine therapists working in the dental field, without any obvious dental background"(which clearly exists and IS a profession). The moment you or someone else finds a better term, we' ll use it! (I'll change the article accordingly)--DeTandarts (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way this works. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, which means it references only things that exist and are notable. This word only exists in the real world in a comedy sketch by an Irish comedian. Therefore it's not notable, and should be deleted. Until someone feels the need to name unqualified dental practitioners with any other name than "Unqualified dental practitioner" I think we can survive without an article on it. -- role 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Nothing reliable to back up claims to being a real profession and as the nominator says appears only to be used in a single sketch. noq (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I just Googled it myself and there are lots of references to the word, all being used in this sense. So do you first want to wait for the Oxford Dictionary or the Britanica to pick up the word or are you going to leave the topic alone: https://www.google.nl/search?q=toothiologist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeTandarts (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?192168-Help-on-Back-Injuries/page2 If by default you close your eyes, than ofcourse you won't see the use of this word anywhere... --DeTandarts (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would not call around 100 lots of hits - especially if you discount the ones that relate to Dara O'Brian. Instead of posting a google search, which particlular links do you think help to establish this as notable? noq (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So now you want to make a math equation out of it? Something like: Not enough for Knowledge < 100 - Dara O'Brian > Enough for Knowledge

Or must this be divided by the square root of the number of times your name is referenced?

The point I Clearly made is that the term is being used(first point), originates from a sketch, and describes (second point) what I wrote down it describes (or change it accordingly). And if you find a better term, or, in time the term stops being used, only than delete it and I'll even be most supportive.--DeTandarts (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take the time to read up on Knowledge's general notability guideline and reliable sources. -- role 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Read it and it only supports why this article should stay. Thanks for the link though! --DeTandarts (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Having read the policy therefore please say how this meets the general notability guideline, and provide some reliable sources to back up your claim. Note: you haven't answered either of these questions yet. -- role 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Where is the significant coverage in WP:reliable sources? A few random hits on a google search is not a reliable source. A forum discussion is not a reliable source. As I requested previously, show me what you consider to be a reference that shows notability. noq (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails notability guidelines, particularly WP:NRVE: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. ... No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" (emphasis mine, of course). HMman (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that the word is widely used. No evidence that Jacob Brandsma has ever been described as a toothiologist in a notable publication. You can contrast this term with a similar neologism, truthiness, which has caught on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete The word is a neologism which has not caught on. The article's claim that Jacob Brandsma is an example of a toothiologist amounts to Original Research unsupported by any Reliable Source. Either way - WP:NEO or WP:V - this article's got to go. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Straightforward delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom, MelanieN, Colapeninsula, et al. It exists as a new word to describe alternates to dentistry, but it is not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Frank Fappiano

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

One sentence article that does not pass WP:CRIME. He is already mentioned in Gambino crime family. Ben Ben (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only good source only even mentions him is passing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete he listed in Gambino family article in the informants section --Vic49 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dietmar Moews

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

Dietmar Moews, deleted various times, discussions from December 2005 and April 2008
Neue Sinnlichkeit / neue sinnlichkeit: deleted various times, see discussion from 2008 with Moews' sidekick Tomski aka Tomskiberlin, who also comments in his video channels
Not to speak of his edits in Springe, Alphons Silbermann and his famous institute, the de:Asz Alphons Silbermann Zentrum - Institut für europäische Massenkommunkations- und Bildungsforschung.

please delete because of the reasons Minderbinder listed above - I also thought about a deletion request after reading the FAZ article on Moews and remember the discussions in ther German WP. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article from 2006 about a German artist that reads like pompous self-promoting. WP:SPIP. Given sources are mostly not verifiable. A search on Google News with "Dietmar Moews" -dietmarmoews.com -youtube.com gives a link to an article in a german newspaper from yesterday where he was described as a Crackpot with a wikipedia article . The newspaper has the second largest circulation in Germany.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete for rather substantial reasons given above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC).
Neutral It would appear to me that the article in the FAZ linked to above goes some way towards establishing notability as a crank. It is basically all about Moews and the reaction to him from people in the political party of which he's a member. Obviously, 95% of the current article should go, but perhaps a stub concentrating on his "kookyness" might be feasible. However, at this point there's only the FAZ article, whereas GNG requires multiple sources, so I am not !voting "keep" at this point. Note, hoever, that the current article claims much coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, this is all pre-Internet and difficult to verify nowadays. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Barn buddy

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

No indication of WP:notability. Few relevant google hits. No independent WP:reliable sources. Appears to be a Farmville clone. noq (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete One of many Farmville clones, no indication of notability per WP:GNG. Scopecreep (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, no independent coverage, notability is not inherited from what it was cloned from. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Getit Infoservices Private Limited

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

The notability of the website of under doubt due to lack of RS. Amartyabag 04:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Not much notable, and yeah, upon search, lacks reliable sources too. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Quite a few RS's exist for the site, which show much more than just a mention. For instance, the New Indian Express speaks about the company's market in Kerala and of their purpose. Two more of them, both from The Hindu also report a similar thing, this time, their role in Tamil Nadu. It says that they launched their first classifieds service in Salem and Coimbatore. More info is also present in those two. Based on these results, I deduce that this is notable. Secret of success (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Secret of success; Google News throws up a small number of hits but I suspect there is more news coverage in older (pre-2000) news sources because Getit has been publishing directories for a long time. Lynch 7 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. The business is described in sales patter that's intentionally vague to conceal its banality: ....directional media company in India which connects buyers and sellers through information products and services. In other words, they make Yellow Pages styled phonebooks and business directories. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, article may not be in a good shape, but that's no reason to disregard its notability. IMO, the company is notable; much more so in earlier years than now. Of course, I'm in no position to actually improve the article, so if it can be userfyed, that would be better I guess? Lynch 7 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

delete i don't see extensive coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NCORP. If not, then change the article focus per WP:ATD and then keep per WP:PRODUCT. Plenty of sources.. -- Trevj (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
delete No extensive coverage on the net, erroneous statements in article and no concrete information in the wiki article.

prashantverma999 (talk) 03 June 2013 (GMT-6) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete: the sourced information doesn't have enough content to make this person notable per WP:BIO Shii (tock) 09:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Kurek

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

Article about an architect at Henning Larsen Architects, written by Henning Larsen Architects. In my opinion, he fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I don't really see much in terms of independent references. I did a Google search, and a scholarly reference search, and most of the links to Mr. Kurek come from his employer, Henning Larsen Associates. Debbie W. 04:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete A quick google search show a lot of independent references: http://www.cityscaperiyadh.com/Conference/WAC/Speakers/Speaker-Profiles/Jacob-Kurek/, http://www.ajman.ac.ae/austweb/indexd301.html?catid=11&newsid=1792&langid=2, http://www.meed.com/sectors/construction/real-estate/jacob-kurek/3092668.article, http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/feature513/feature513-7.html, http://www.sesam-uae.com/jeddah/profiles/jacob-kurek.asp. Mr. Kurek is an important, well known architect in the Middle East Area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josefine vesterbrogade (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete I'm not convinced Kurek is notable in his own right. Several of the sources listed above are promoting him as a speaker, or lecturer, therefore not independent or reliable. Generally the articles cited in the article are about Henning Larsen projects, not Kurek. He probably deserves an honourable mention in the Henning Larsen article. But if more than one news article substantially about Kurek can be found, I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. None of the sources listed by Josefine vesterbrogade appear to be independent, they are profiles written for conferences that he attended. Such sources are often OK for basic facts, but they lack the independence to be reliable indicators of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted as author of article has nominated it here. Peridon (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rossendale F.C.

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

This article was about a new football (soccer) club that formed after the original team was disbanded. Unfortunately the new team itself has disbanded. I have included the text of this page in the original team article. I was the author of the new article One Salient Oversight (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Residential colleges of the University of Queensland. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

St Leo's College, University of Queensland

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

Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Many apparently unsupported statements about apparently living people. Nothing obvious in google or google news except for passing mentions such as . PROD removed by SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Residential colleges of the University of Queensland. Lankiveil 08:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

It may be worth mentioning that Residential colleges of the University of Queensland is also currently up up for AFD for lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect - as per Lankiveil. The article as it stands does not establish notability. It appears that the AfD for the more general article will fail, so this one should be trimmed to the bare, verifiable essentials and folded in until such time that it passes the test for independent notability. Seaphoto 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All Information on the St Leo's page reflects the history of the institution. It should not be deleted

This conversation is now closed. Please remove this template and close the AFD discussion.

Please remove the AFD notice at the top of the article entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longlongjohn (talk • contribs)

This is not true, so please don't let the above dissuade any interested editor in providing an opinion. The AfD will continue until it is closed by an uninvovled administrator. For more information on how the process works, please see WP:CLOSEAFD Seaphoto 02:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect I don't think there is enough motivation for this college to have its own page. I boldly deleted some very dubious outsourced information. If someone comes up with more reliable sources I would be happy to see the page restated. Francis Bond (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - this is not a "hostel", it's an independent university college. The failed notability guideline proposal from 2009, WP:Notability (schools) suggests that reporting of academic or sporting results in RSs may be sufficient to establish notability. In that case, http://westside-news.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/st-leos-claim-new-trophy-from-kings/ and perhaps http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super-rugby/wallabies-coach-robbie-deans-looking-forward-to-watching-quade-coopers-duel-with-kurtley-beale/story-e6frf4qu-1226041964785 may go some way towards satisfying GNG. There are probably many more sources available offline than on; perhaps User:Longlongjohn or users in Queensland might be able to help on that front. It's also worthwhile remembering that while the UCs are closely affiliated with one or more universities, they are independently financed, owned and governed.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

When you say independent university college do you mean that it grants degrees? If reliable sources to that effect are added to the page, I'll withdraw the AfD nomination immediately. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not grant degrees, it is a residential college, somewhat analogous to the American frat. It is independently owned and controlled, but its students attend UQ. I agree these can often be borderline, but I think they have some inherent notability similar to the consensus on high schools.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As you point out, WP:Notability (schools) failed, leaving us to fall back on WP:ORG and this doesn't meet that criteria, in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect per the above. Yeti Hunter, Australian university colleges are residential institutions and do not deliver any accredited courses or award degrees. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - if you are going to consider this article for deletion based on the fact that residential university colleges are not notable enough, you are also going to have to mark for deletion all of the University of Sydney Colleges, as well as the inidvidual entries for the residential colleges at Cambridge and Oxford. Othewise, it gives rise to double standards. To avoid any doubt, here are the links to some of them:

The solution may be to improve this St Leo's College article, but not to delete it with at least attempting to give it "sources". If it doesn't appear notable, its because it hasnt been sourced with references, not because it isnt notable. Otherwise, the Sydney, Cambridge and Oxford ones will all have to go as well. Puckpetspot (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC). — Puckpetspot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The question is not (and has never been) "are residential university colleges notable?" the question is (and has always been) "has this particular entity received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per the WP:GNG and WP:ORG?". (I just tagged Wesley College, University of Sydney). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If Wesley College, University of Sydney was tagged, why not The Women's College? Puckpetspot (talk 1:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the tag from "notability" to "refimprove", since The Women's College similarly turns up mobs of sources on NLA (here). Unreferenced article ≠ unreferencable article. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the University of Melbourne Colleges, such as Newman College (University of Melbourne)? And what about Campion Hall, Oxford? Why have these not been marked for deletion, if this recommendation for St Leo's deletion is valid??? Puckpetspot (talk) 3:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, particularly where it says "The nature of Knowledge means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - I am inviting you to keep to a standard practice which seems to have been adopted with respect to the University of Queensland residential colleges and start the deletion process for these as well. Puckpetspot (talk) 3:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of no standard policy on this. I'll not go looking for more stuff to delete until my current AfD's are finished, but I have some active PRODs I may nominate for AfD if they're declined. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are not notable sources within the article, does not mean or imply that notables sources do not exist. If notable sources are included in the article, per WP:GNG and WP:ORG, the article should not be deleted. Perhaps therefore, those who recommend deletion should instead take it upon themselves to improve the articles, rather than just criticising them and recommending they be deleted. A very large large number of sources exist for this and all other University of Queensland residential colleges. It is just a matter of finding them and bringing the article up to a standard where it is not a target for deletion. Perhaps if energy went into improving a body of knowledge rather than attempting to eradicate it all together, the article would have been 'properly' sourced and up to 'standards' by now. Perhaps this can be summed up with reference to WP:BOLD . Puckpetspot (talk) 1:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the basic point about WP:Notability (schools) was explicitly making sporting results and the like sufficient for GNG. Technically, such reports would satisfy it anyway. FWIW, the NLA archive is rich with such sources: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=St+Leo%27s+college -Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also remind you that you can't just say "plenty of sources exist, go find them". Responsibility for sourcing lies solely with the editor adding material.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Any other opinions as to whether the sources I've linked to above are enough to satisfy GNG?-Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. This article is worth saving. Heaps of available references to satisfy notablility concerns.LongJohn_Sock (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks very positive. Add the refs to the article and I'll withdraw the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lots of book related references and sources available as well for the keen editor to reference as well. For example, see "Building a Palace; a comparison between St Edmund's College, Cambridge, and St Leo's College, University of Queensland, Dr Dominic Katter, Barrister-at-Law". See also "http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1391443" ClonkJogsHon (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More references for the keen editor to help improve this article

http://www.campusdaily.com.au/read_university_news.php?title=australia_day_honours_to_uq_community_members_55879

http://www.uqrugby.com/index.php?page=220&ssid=220&mid=2

http://www.stjohnscollege.edu.au/rector.html

http://www.uq.edu.au/graduatecontact/web-exclusives/colleges-mark-colourful-history/

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4607159

BeetleNavy (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. It appears that the nominator has attempted to withdraw. Furthermore, he did not provide a deletion rationale. Both are reasons to close under SK 1. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Lutterloh

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

TowTrucker (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. User TowTrucker has failed to provide a reason for thinking that this article should be deleted. Lutterloh is a popular home sewing pattern drafting system which has been sold internationally for at least 50 years. Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
To follow up, user TowTrucker has removed the AfD template from the page, it appears that this user intended to withdraw the nomination. Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yimei Xiang

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

Grad student who does not meet notability guidelines as far as I can tell. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Unfortunately, she doesn't appear to pass our notability guidelines for academics yet. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Riverhouse (Singer)

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

I can't find significant coverage of this musician in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The references given are sites sponsored by Sistic, and it also gives the singers main website, http://ohriverhouse.com, as the very first reference.This website provides references for the biographical information of the singer, and hosts some reviews too.

If the singer's official website is stated, then surely that should count as one of the major verifiable references? If the page provides major biographical information, then that should definitely be used. Dontyoubetcha (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

— Dontyoubetcha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dru of Id (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found that the singer has a last.fm page, shown in reference no.3 on http://en.wikipedia.org/Riverhouse_(Singer). This reference verifies the statement shown before..all references look accurate to me..this page shouldn't be deleted. Editingonaweekend (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

— Editingonaweekend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Do not remove this again. Dru of Id (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No independent coverage found. Nothing indicates any sort of notability here. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Someone's own official site is not taken as a reliable reference, especially when significance or notability is the question, Some are 100% OK, but in other cases they have been rather less so. In one, the only evidence for the existence of a 'multinational' was their website. Official sites are really only good for the External Links section. I don't regard last.fm as a reliable source as so far as I an aware the info is user supplied, like at AboutUs and LinkedIn. For the policy on reliable independent sources, see WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete If you take last.fm as reliable, this performer is 13. I would like to have evidence of the numerous sessions for the BBC and NME. Proper evidence from reliable sources. An article about this performer has been speedied twice as Riverhouse, In the version I deleted, the BBC were said to have compared his demo to a couple of notable acts, but that was tagged 'not in citation'. No mention of sessions, although in the last five days there might have been... I wish the subject luck - and an article when the time arrives. He may be up-and-coming, but Knowledge is for the arrived (and the past it). Peridon (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Several users seem to be concerned about duplication of coverage in other articles. If that's the case, starting a merge discussion somewhere might be appropriate. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dimensional approach to personality disorders

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders

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

There are a variety of reasons this article should, in my opinion, be deleted. Article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. After I have gone looking for sources, it appears in search engines for a phrase in non-psychology terms that would be like "riding+a+bicycle" Riding a bicycle or "Take a tylenol". Yes, it appears but it is a description of something. See this and this for further evidence of how it is not a notable topic because of the description. The next issue is the article is not actually about the topic. "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" is the article but this phrase only appears once. The article appears to be about a completely different topic. At best, I think the subsections could be merged into other articles and parts of it could be merged into Personality_disorder#Interventions with a redirect for the article going there. Lastly, Knowledge is not a textbook and this article reads like that. I don't think, given that the article only mentions the topic in the first sentence, this is easily fixable... especially when combined with the notability issues. LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep Clearly notable, just needs some cleanup. Perhaps Dimensional models of personality disorders would be a better name for this, but this is a central concept in personality disorder classification (as opposed to a categorical approach) as seen here, especially in the Alternative Dimensional Models section. The top hits in this Google scholar search also demonstrate that this passes WP:GNG. If this is not written in a manner that is conducive to DYK that's fine, but that's not a reason to delete. Gobōnobo 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Gobōnobo 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep -As per Gobonobo, the article should probably be renamed to Dimensional models of personality disorders, though approach and model are often used interchangeably in the academic world. There are hundreds of acedmic papers that cover this subject, and the article has references to the different models. The article is a work in progress as part of an academic assignment of a pysch grad student at FSU. This is the user's first article; taking their article to AFD over style concerns is not the right approach. You also didn't notify the user on their talk page which is not right. Knowledge:Please do not bite the newcomers.Smallman12q (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor is the online ambassador for the course in question: Knowledge:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I communicated with the user several times. The article doesn't appear to talk about "Dimensional models of personality disorders" either as that doesn't appear in the article either. I'll repeat that I can find a huge volume of academic articles about riding a bicycle or taking a Tylenol, but we would not have an article titled Riding a bicycle or Take a Tylenol. The content could and probably should be merged into appropriate existing articles because the article is not about the stated topic. Attachment disorder repeatedly mentions Attachment disorder. Object permanence repeatedly mentions Object permanence. Consciousness repeatedly mentions Consciousness. Almost all articles talk about their topic... and medical articles should be held to a higher standards. I can't see how this article can be saved from its not on topic, reads like an academic article and pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk)
  - We have an article for Cycling and if someone was willing, there is sufficient literature to write an article on proper Tylenol dosage. I don't see why there can't be overview/comparison articles on the different aspects of the topic. The article is not complete...and can be reworked to more accurately reflect the title. This is their first article. The article should probably be to Dimensional models of personality disorders. There are books on the topic. From Textbook of Psychiatric Epidemiology p.419: "The issue of the relative merits of categorical versus dimensional approaches cuts accross most domains of pyschopathology. However it is especially significant in the domain of PDs, in part, because of the long tradition of research in personality pyschology based on dimensional models." Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I believe there is a misunderstanding in what the topic is.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  - LauraHale did not communicate with the user Abj89 on her talk page or in the talk page to the article "dimensional models of personality disorders". She listed one general criticism of all the students' contributions on the general course page, which mostly focused on her frustration and annoyance that students were apparently not following directions and that she was not being paid to do review work. It had no specific criticism and did not refer to the dimensional models page. Dimensional models of disorders may be the hottest topic in abnormal psychology for the past ten years, and will have major consequences for diagnosis, treatment, and insurance over the coming years, because of its influence on the DSM. The public is going to want to know what these models mean, and I think Knowledge may be a good place for them to find that information. I was not aware that the count of references to the topic title was an evaluation criterion, but certainly an editor could comment on the talk page that such a change is recommended. William Fleeson (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    This editor is the professor of the course in question, Knowledge:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    - The article was not written by Abj89. The user was repeatedly communicated with during their DYK review. They did not respond and have yet to respond from what I can tell. I'm not arguing I should be paid for me work and my bitterness does not stem from that but rather the incompetence of either William Fleeson in preparing students for writing articles and interacting with the community, the incompetence of students in following directions given by William Fleeson and the campus ambassador, or the failure of the programme to set realistic guidelines. As an academic article, I would probably rate it a C. As a Knowledge article, it is pretty awful and it doesn't pass guidelines for WP:GNG. By the way, what was your instructional objective for having students submit WP:DYK? If your instructional objective was "Students will learn about psychology by submitting subject specific articles to Knowledge's Did You Know process." then it was ill advised. You do not learn CONTENT and SUBJECT expertise by going through the Did You Know process. An appropriate instructional objective related to Did You Know would have been "Students will learn about the peer assessment process and practice following directions by submitting an article to Knowledge for inclusion on Did You Know." The file File:Outreach Oceania Integrating Wikimedia into the Curriculum.pdf should give you a better idea as to what you're doing William Fleeson as it should give you insights into how to maximise student success while not creating disruption on English Knowledge. --LauraHale (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      - Excuse the mistaken user identification -- Allexe11 wrote much of the article, and my point still stands. LauraHale communicated with this user only starting April 14th, and Allexe11 responded at least once within a day in an attempt to address the concerns. As for the rest of the comment above, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion about deleting this article, so I'm not going to respond for the time being, other than to assure everyone that we have followed guidelines, recommendations, advice, and files very closely. I do hope that comments like those are not standard for Knowledge....William Fleeson (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not. Knowledge:No personal attacks is policy. Please follow Knowledge:CALM. As William Fleeson states, User:Allexe11 responded within a day to the comments at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/dimensional_approach_to_personality_disorders. Regardless, this AFD nomination is based on the assertion that the article topic, "Dimensional approach to personality disorders"/"Dimensional models of personality disorders" fails the General Notability Guideline and the nominator also states that the article cannot be corrected to reflect the topic. We do not attack/disparage each other's character at AFD...we discuss the validity of the rationale for the nomination for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Name change does not address fundamental issues with article and its content. Comments here by course instructor and ambassador indicate WP:FRINGE may also be at play for article content. Have not seen evidence supporting passage of WP:GNG. Still support delete as nominator.--LauraHale (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which comments by the course instructor and ambassador gave you the impression that WP:FRINGE was at play? Gobōnobo 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Delete as per WP:FRINGE. If this is a well-known approach which is really challenging the DSM as claimed there should be a metric buttload more mainstream references that aren't in the article and don't appear to be in obvious searches. If one or two references really good references can be found, merge to a single paragraph in Big Five personality traits. If references are found (maybe using a different term or in a foreign language?) and added to the page, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There needn't be an additional requirement beyond WP:GNG simply because something challenges the DSM. There are ample references already in the article and plenty more that could be included:

Widiger, TA (Jun 2007). "Dimensional models of personality disorder". World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA). 6 (2): 79–83. PMID 18235857.

An opinion piece, from 2007, which states: "There is little doubt that someday the classification of personality disorder will be dimensional." Are they now? If not, this opinion has no bearing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Trull, TJ (Jan 2007). "Dimensional models of personality disorder: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition and beyond". Current opinion in psychiatry. 20 (1): 52–6. PMID 17143083. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

A review, which states "Although there may be some initial resistance to the incorporation of the dimensional models in the future diagnostic manuals, researchers and clinicians are expected to benefit from the more reliable and valid portrayal of personality pathology." Are they now in DSM-5? If not, this can be incorporated elsewhere, accorded due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Widiger, TA (Sep 2009). "An integrative dimensional classification of personality disorder". Psychological assessment. 21 (3): 243–55. PMID 19719338. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This is a review, concerned with whether dimensional classifications should be part of the DSM? Are they? If not, this can be summarized in personality disorder, giving the issue due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Livesley, WJ (Apr 2007). "A framework for integrating dimensional and categorical classifications of personality disorder". Journal of personality disorders. 21 (2): 199–224. PMID 17492921.

A review, indicating strong resistance to this model ... why is all of this info not in the article? Now I'm seeing an WP:NPOV issue in the article, and if dimensional models aren't currently part of the DSM, then this POV could be presented in personality disorder, accorded due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Brown, TA; Barlow, DH (Nov 2005). "Dimensional versus categorical classification of mental disorders in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and beyond: comment on the special section". Journal of abnormal psychology. 114 (4): 551–6. PMID 16351377.

Another discussion, proposing it be added to the DSM. Has it been? If not, can be discussed elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Widiger, TA; Simonsen, E (Apr 2005). "Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground". Journal of personality disorders. 19 (2): 110–30. PMID 15899712.

A review that starts with, "The recognition of the many limitations of the categorical model of personality disorder classification ... " OK, now I'm seeing still a POV problem. IF we have so many reviews, why aren't they mentioned, and why isn't this controversy merely a paragraph or two at personality disorder? IF this model is adapted in DSM-5 (May 2013), then an article is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Krueger, RF (2007). "Synthesizing dimensional and categorical approaches to personality disorders: refining the research agenda for DSM-V Axis II". International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 16 Suppl 1: S65-73. PMID 17623397. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Livesley, WJ (Apr 2005). "Behavioral and molecular genetic contributions to a dimensional classification of personality disorder". Journal of personality disorders. 19 (2): 131–55. PMID 15899713.
Ryder, AG (Nov–Dec 2002). "The overlap of depressive personality disorder and dysthymia: a categorical problem with a dimensional solution". Harvard review of psychiatry. 10 (6): 337–52. PMID 12485980. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Sprock, J (Sep 2003). "Dimensional versus categorical classification of prototypic and nonprototypic cases of personality disorder". Journal of clinical psychology. 59 (9): 991–1014. PMID 12945064.
Verheul, R (Jun 2005). "Clinical utility of dimensional models for personality pathology". Journal of personality disorders. 19 (3): 283–302. PMID 16175737.

Gobōnobo 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder. Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Knowledge any favors. Yes, there are reviews. They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else. After the primary sources are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:FRINGE Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not a valid deletion rationale and does not apply here ~~because~~ if it refers to giving undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. If this were the DSM article and the dimensional approach was taking up half the article, that would be a situation in which the fringe guideline would apply. To quote the nutshell definition of fringe, "More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." This is that article about the idea and notability is the relevant consideration here. Gobōnobo 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your argument here, and will continue to use it as a deletion rationale where I feel than an article is merely a WP:SOAPBOX for a fringe idea. However, I have been convinced that this is not the case, and am striking the vote to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hawkeye7. You're quite right. I was mistaken and have so stricken my comments. Gobōnobo 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am the main contributor to the Dimensional models of personality disorders page, and a first-time contributor to Knowledge. I was only notified twice of changes that should be made to the article — I apologize if more than one round of reviews is deemed unaccepable. After the first review I did attempt to make the appropriate changes. The second review was posted at the article's DYK page two hours before the article was nominated for deletion, and at my talk page one hour beforehand. If one to two hours is too long of a waiting period for issues to be addressed, I apologize again. I do believe the article is salvageable, and as mentioned above is growing a as a major topic in assessment of personality disorders. However, as a first-time contributor, I am still somewhat unsure of the types of things I can do to improve notability, encyclopedic tone, etc, and any suggestions and/or examples would be greatly appreciated. I have found some psychology and psychiatry websites, which are not original research articles, that talk about dimensional models of personality disorders — are these the types of things that should be cited to increase notability? (Also, if this is the wrong place for this discussion, please let me know, and please direct me to where this type of comment should go.) Allexe11 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kudos to Allexe11, for declaring his/her involvement in this discussion and for asking relevant questions about how to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a merge. This article spends a lot of space talking about the Big Five personality traits including variations like two factor and seven factor. It seems to me that the content could be kept but merged into that article instead of being a separate article. I must admit that I have some suspicions that this article was created with the motivation of encouraging the adoption of this model in the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, because this article gave high prominence to claims in the opening section of the article and includes little criticism of the model. At the minimum it seems to me that this article needs to sound less like a push to include this model in the DSM-V. Pine 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point to make here is that the article is an overview of the different models, five factor, two, seven, et al. Big Five personality traits is about the traits of one of those models and doesn't address personality disorders, so merging this doesn't seem workable to me. Regarding your suspicions, are the lack of criticism and the claims in the lead the only basis for them? If so, calling the article creator's motivations into question seems unwarranted here. Let's assume good faith and if there's any bias, it can be corrected. Gobōnobo 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A comparison/overview of the models sounds like a good idea for an article, but this isn't it. Something like Comparison of document markup languages might work, but I see nothing of an article like that in an article like this. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Widiger's article in World Psychiatry entitled "Dimensional models of personality disorder" does a good job of explaining why an overview/comparison is necessary here as well as establishing the notability of this topic. A neat table of comparisons might work well for markup languages, but prose is more useful here. Gobōnobo 08:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. I did a Google Scholar search for "Dimensional approach to personality disorders." There are numerous citations to articles in both the scholarly literature in psychology and psychiatry and in news and other semi-popular sources relevant to psychology. I've includes some of the citations below. A number of these citations themselves have been cited hundreds of times. Many different authors have written about this topic. The topic has been the subject of literature reviews. Whether to think about personality disorders in terms of discrete categories (e.g., Antisocial personality disorder) or in terms of a configuration of dimensions, like extroversion and neuroticism) is an open discussion in both the research literature and practice in developing the DSM-V. All of these factors suggest that the article meets standards for notability.Robertekraut (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: a functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the< em> DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401.
Krueger, R. F., Skodol, A. E., Livesley, W. J., Shrout, P. E., & Huang, Y. (2007). Synthesizing dimensional and categorical approaches to personality disorders: refining the research agenda for DSM‐V Axis II. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 16(S1), S65-S73.
Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J., Quigley, B. D., & Lyons, M. (2000). Dimensions and categories: The" Big Five" factors and the DSM personality disorders. Assessment, 7(3), 203-216.
Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). State and trait anxiety revisited. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15(3), 231-245.
Frances, A. (2010). Opening Pandora’s box: The 19 worst suggestions for DSM5. Psychiatric Times, 27(2).

This editor was "influential in starting the Association for Psychological Science's Knowledge Initiative Association for Psychological Science's Knowledge Initiative", which IMO has produced similar issues wrt sourcing. The citations above are typical of what we are now seeing throughout psych articles, with no PMIDs, no DOIs, nothing to help other editors verify the appropriate use of secondary vs. primary sources, with primary sources proliferating throughout Knowledge psych articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I looked on the Knowledge:Fringe page and it says: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." However, this issue has been discussed and proposed by several authors in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks on personality psychology, and as such is not a fringe issue. A move and some rewriting should be sufficient. Bear in mind that the author is a new contributor and we are all just trying to learn here--specific, constructive criticisms would help her improve the page, rather than a general "this sounds like a textbook rather than an encyclopedia entry", which doesn't really convey the specific issues that user:LauraHale has with the article. Abj89 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor is another student in the same course, Knowledge:United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson)/Articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I reviewed the sources that come up on GScholar, and there are at least several articles for the "Dimensional approaches of personality disorders" and "Dimensional models of personality disorders". This suggests to me it is a topic of interest to an encyclopedia. It may be rather specialized, but hardly fringe. If possible, I'd suggest adding a section to the article discussing who coined the term,and citing several works that use it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do something! There's already a bunch of articles on this subject: e.g. Big Five personality traits, Big Five personality traits and culture, Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This on is also about the Big Five: Personality and life outcomes. What's with this? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete or merge There are at least five articles on the Big Five in the DYK queue right now, that contain much of the same information: Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five, Big Five personality traits and culture, Change in the Big Five in (Change in personality over a lifetime), Five-factor model (in Dimensional models of personality disorders) and Personality and life outcomes - basically about the Big Five — all these nominated for DYK right now. And maybe more. I haven't checked them all. So all these new articles on the "Big Five" (especially since you say it's been around a long time?) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway about DYKs and student-created articles. The outcomes of merger discussions for other articles do not pertain to whether this article is kept. As noted above, the article is an overview of the different models, (five factor, two, seven, etc.). Big Five personality traits is about the traits themselves and doesn't address disorders, so merging this doesn't seem workable to me. Gobōnobo 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment editors may want to review Knowledge:Meat puppetry to ensure that they are staying within bounds of acceptable behaviour. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm flagging the undeclared participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Gobonobo pinged my talk page to look at the new references. There are now significant numbers of references, by a range of authors in a number of forums, and I'm particularly liking (it would also be nice to see page-ranges of standard undergrad texts which discuss the topic); as a result I'm stepping back from my WP:FRINGE argument. Unfortunately I also have to agree with User:MathewTownsend and User:LauraHale (as well as my comments above) that this article isn't clear enough about what it's about to differentiate it from related articles. I'm not sure whether the solution is Delete, merge or stubify; but it's not keep. Stuartyeates (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - "Dimensional assessments" are not the same as "Dimensional approach to personality disorders"

The article referenced above DSM-V Draft Promises Big Changes in Some Psychiatric Diagnoses does not mention Dimensional approach to personality disorders.

It says: Using "dimensional assessments" to account for severity of symptoms, especially those that appear in multiple diagnostic categories. (Notice there is no mention of personality disorders at all in the article.)

It also says: Another innovation in DSM-V will be the extensive use of so-called dimensional assessments. Whereas DSM-IV relied heavily on present-absent symptom checklists, the new edition will include severity scales for symptoms, such as anxiety or insomnia, that may appear to larger or smaller degrees in many different mental illnesses.

Please don't confuse "assessments" with "personality disorders". MathewTownsend (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't such a specific comment be more suited to the article's talk page? Aside from that, the DSM-V website specifically states that part of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders will be "one or more pathological personality trait domains or trait facets", and that "The personality domain in DSM-5 is intended to describe the personality characteristics of all patients, whether they have a personality disorder or not." The idea that normal and disordered personality can be described using the same domains is a major component of the dimensional models, and has direct relevance to how PDs are assessed. Allexe11 (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It does belong on the talk page.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion appears to be devolving into essentially a terminological dispute. WP:Style states "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." May I suggest that the editors with expertise in the field attempt to re-craft the article lede to explain exactly what the topic of the article is? Without a clear lede it's hard to imagine this discussion making progress. A clear explanation of "Dimensional model", "dimensional approach", proper introduction of acronyms, linking to real pages not disambiguation pages, clarifying the difference between personality pathology and psychopathology in this context would be a great place to start. Bonus points for explaining these terms by linking them to clear definitions in extant articles and/or clarifying which kind of Dimension_(disambiguation) is being talked about. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The lead seems fairly concise and straightforward, though at a college English level, which is fine. What kind of editors with expertise are you looking for...these are pysch graduate students writing the articles under the auspices of a published psychology professor at Wake Forest University. The dimension referred to in the article is a personality characteristic, such as openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (taken from Big Five personality traits). You can read up more on at Personality Disorders: Controversies and Theory, including dimensional theory. Comments regarding the lead should be raised and addressed on the talk page, not AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  - I've rewritten it to move it towards WP:Style (in my eyes) and improve the grammar and structure (again in my eyes). Stuartyeates (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  - These issues are relavent here, because the lack of clarity is negatively impacting this discussion by creating confusion about what the article is actually about. Stuartyeates (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Article should be renamed to Big Five Dimensional approach to personality disorders - It's not an article about "dimensional approaches" in general. It's about the Big Five's dimensional approach. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is about dimensional models in general - only one model is directly related to the Big Five, one was initially based on the Big Five but made changes, and two are completely independent of the Big Five. I've also addressed this at the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allexe11 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - the Big Five is hardly the first model to use Trait theory, thus producing dimensions. Any theory that utilizes continuums versus relying totally on categories falls into this category. This article distorts the subject. After all, the 16PF and the MMPI were here long before. An article with this title should explain what dimensions are in personality theory and the history of the use of dimensions. This is just more unjustified focus on one particular measurement, the "Big Five". There are already plenty of articles on the "Big Five" when in the history of psychological personality measurement the MMPI and the 16PF are more important. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep The nom's analogies do not hold, and the only actual reason for deletion appears to be a disagreement about the actual content. I agree there are many models not yet covered, but it is apparent from the article that many sections remain to be written. I do not understand the claims of lack of clarity--this seems perfectly clear to me, so I suppose there is some basic disagreement with some part of the model or some implication of it. I can't say I understand what the disagreement is--the article looks to me like a mainstream introductory article in psychology, totally appropriate to an academic program, and a good example of academic writing for Knowledge . Some of the Academic Program articles have been too much in the nature of essays, but this seems very appropriately encyclopedic. It is always possible that an instructor of a course might orient an article too closely around their own perspective, but I really don't see this as an example of it. Rather, it looks like those objecting to the article--who do not appear to be specialists in the subject--are the ones who need to prove their case. I do not see they have introduced any references supporting their views; if they were to let us know what material they are relying on, we could judge what sort of sources they are--this would appear to be a case where the guidelines at MEDRES are applicable. I've never been a supporter of giving academic specialists power over articles in their own fields without review by the community as a whole, but I would certainly encourage some further input here from people who have some evidence to show that they know what they are talking about. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per expansion and added reading/refs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The article has been improved since you nominated it, but when you nominated it, the article still had a decent number of citations from eminently reliable sources. Unless you're trying to change our notability standards, it's simply absurd to suggest that that version of this article did not pass WP:GNG. Moreover, educational collaboration projects are well established and not a COI issue — kindly stop beating a dead horse. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I have literally no idea how anyone can think this fails the GNG. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

~~This is an alternate account of a WMF employee, relevant to the issues with the WFM-backed Education Programs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)~~
I am not a WMF employee. Please strike your comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
My apologies-- struck and replaced -- and now I have to figure out how I got that comment in the wrong place and to whom it applied. Perhaps folks coming to these discussions in the future will enter declarations so others don't goof! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note to observers: I'm not an online ambassador either. I'd specify my connection to the education program, but I think it demonstrates something interesting to see you get it wrong so many times in a row. I will specify: I was not canvassed for this discussion, have discussed it with no other education program participant off-wiki, have no connection to any of the ambassadors/instructors/students in this course, approach every afd on it's own merits, and have previously voted delete or merge on edu program content. I have no WP:COI by any reasonable definition. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on: first, can everyone coming to this discussion please declare their involvement with the Education Program, so COI and coordinated editing can be evaluated? Second, how many people declaring this article is notable have examined whether it relies mainly on primary sources? If it does, then the content should be reduced to what is more correctly covered in secondary sources, and merged to another article. I came to this discussion from WP:ENB, where I detailed the problems with AFDs like this one, involving Education Courses. Unless someone demonstrates that 1) coordinating editing is not overwhelming the consensus process here, and 2) the article relies mostly on secondary sources rather than original research stringing together primary studies, I conclude with MERGE and REDIRECT, after primary sources being used to produce original research are removed. Likely target is a paragraph at Personality disorder in treatment. Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought; we leave the writing of academic papers based on primary sources to the professionals, and we report what secondary sources say about primary studies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have now gone through, added PMIDs (which were missing), so I could determine how many primary studies were being used. I found one review article, and generally primary studies and opinion pieces. It is unwieldy in the scope of an AFD to detail all of the problems with this article, so I will highlight just one:
Following from these claims, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) draft incorporates a combined categorical-dimensional approach to diagnosing personality disorders ...
DSM-5 will not be adopted and finalized until May 2013, but this sentence is about a draft proposal, one article's claims, and based on opinions from a primary study. This is not how we write articles on Knowledge-- we leave synthesis of primary sources to professionals. Such examples are throughout the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Userfy to editor's space for improvements. Having now reviewed the aspects of coordinated editing affecting this AFD, the extensive reliance on primary sources and opinion pieces in the existing article leading to original research, the failure to use secondary reviews available that results in a POV article, the lack of focus of this article and the unencyclopedic tone, the extent of the problems with this particular professor's other course articles, and the helpful attitude and confusion shown by the student editor who created this article, I conclude that the most charitable thing to do is to userfy the article so that the editor who created it can rework it to reflect what secondary sources say, and based on that reworking, decide in which article that text belongs. We should start from the premise that we write from secondary sources: we don't create original research. As it stands, there are so many problems (POV, primary sources, unencyclopedic tone, what looks like a class agenda/POV promoted by the professor, complicated by the fact that we don't know what DSM-5 will adopt, so using opinion pieces about the DSM-5 draft is not appropriate), that it is unlikely the article will be cleaned up from its present state, and it is impossible to discern the correct merge target for whatever text can be salvaged. I'm in favor of giving the student a chance to understand Knowledge policies, work from secondary sources to reflect them, rework the text to agree with Knowledge policies, and then decide in which article the content belongs, sans the preset term paper/student essay constraints-- something I don't see the involved parties advocating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Coming from ANI. Per Gobonobo justification "central concept in personality disorder classification". Our article on personality disorder does not mention this concept in the classification section at all. Maybe a summary their first and than have this as a subarticle if sufficient secondary sources are found. Currently a note a number of primary sources that need trimming.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It is mentioned at Personality_disorder#Normal_personality_and_personality_disorders.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete or userfy We have a whole bunch of edits from a whole bunch of editors and there's still no definition of the "dimension" / "dimensional" in the title that makes sense to me. I'm still dithering on whether this is WP:FRINGE but clearly Gobonobo thinks it isn't. There are a ton of references, which might be related, but the only one I actually understand has been disputed. There could easily be an encyclopedia article in there someplace, but if there is, it's not being pointed at effectively by the text as it stands. I encourage those interested in saving the article to go for userfication while they write Dimension (medical diagnostics) and/or a decent section explaining dimensions in Medical diagnosis. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Chiliagon

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

Redirect to Polygon. The content of this article has stood well in Polygon for some time. The arguments for keeping (at Talk:Chiliagon) were that "the article was not particularly short, had a citation for the facts that make the chiliagon notable, and other wikipedias have parallel articles". The third is not a good reason (just because another Knowledge has an article on this topic does not mean we have to), and there is only one fact that makes the chiliagon notable (its use in Descartes' sixth meditation) as the rest of the information can be deduced easily from the formulas in polygon and regular polygon. When this information is removed, the article is quite short and can be merged into Polygon#Naming polygons. Also, this article claims that Descartes also used the myriagon in his sixth meditation, but the myriagon does not have its own article. Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages. Megagon is being nominated for similar reasons. The Petrie polygons can be covered in the main Petrie polygon article: ~~I am not nominating heptadecagon as it is notable for its constructibility:~~

Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 15. Snotbot t • c » 03:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If an article has only standard angle / perimeter /area formulas worked out for a particular polygon, then it could easily be deleted -- however, a number of these articles (such as Chiliagon itself) appear to have relevant information going beyond this, and so should be Kept. -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The information can easily be merged into the table at Polygon#Naming polygons. Chiliagon was merged there and was later recreated with the reasons "the article was not particularly short, had a citation for the facts that make the chiliagon notable, and other wikipedias have parallel articles". I have mentioned above why I do not agree with these reasons. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The chiliagon example in Descartes is of great importance in the history of philosophy, and indeed for topics in contemporary philosophy of mind, perception, and cognition. It was taken up, after Descartes, by such central figures as David Hume and Immanuel Kant. The matter is not about the general polygon, but a very-many-sided polygon: and the detailed development of the idea depends, in fact, on the exact number one thousand. This could be worked up into something more substantial in the article; if it is kept, I will be inclined to do some of that work myself. Noetica 06:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- There is a column in the table at Polygon#Naming polygons for "Remarks". Previously, the chiliagon example was covered in the "Remarks" column for the "chiliagon" row. It fits well in the table and would be better than having a very short article with only one piece of information in it. Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment someone should transfer the definitions to wiktionary. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

keep Chiliagon, Megagon and myriagon (a redirect) are notable because of their philosophical implications. These are important and would be lost if merged into polygon, or requiring a new section in an already over long article. Week keep others these have lesser importance but do have some properties of note, constructability, use in tilings. --Salix (talk): 06:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Do you think myriagon should be recreated? Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, couldn't these properties be merged into polygon, or perhaps into a new article called list of regular polygons that would include the notable properties of each regular polygon that does not have enough notable properties to justify its own article, like the lists at 1000 (number)? (WP:1729 states that a number should have at least three notable properties to deserve its own article, and I think the same should apply for polygons.) Double sharp (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if the best solution would be to have an article on ploygons with very large number of sides where the philosophical implications could be discussed at length. Only problem is I can't thing of a good name for the article.--Salix (talk): 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of List of polygons, which has been proposed before (see Talk:Polygon#I recommend a "list of polygons" as a compromise)? Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to section s in regular polygon. I can't see anything in them that can't be covered better by a sentence in regular polygon which I think is a better target for them than polygon. Knowledge isn't a dictionary. Chillagon and icosagon are marginally more notable than mere dictionary entries but really chillagon has no separate notability - it is just a random large regular polygon that was needed for the purpose of argument. It is the topics that are notable not the names. Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
~~Triacontagon~~, Chiliagon and Megagon redirect to "polygon". Don't merge all polygons for n ≤ 20 – the content is not trivial, and redirects would cause a considerable havoc in interwiki links. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about triacontagon, there is some non-trivial information. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think regular polygon is what they really should redirect to. For instance a random polygon with a large number of sides would not look almost like a circle. The meaning is what one wants not just what's given by the etymology. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, no. Redirect to a narrow topic (to regular chiliagons and so) may suggest that the term "chiliagon" implies regularity, which is not the case. Even deletion would be better than creating such redirect entries which will promulgate confusion and misconception. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It does imply regularity. Look at Meditation VI. No word 'regular' needed there. Same with the rest. Only a few of the lower ones don't always imply regularity and even for them most of time the regular form is meant. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Although it technically does not imply regularity, it usually is taken to imply regularity. I think chiliagon and megagon should definitely be redirected back to polygon, but I would not mind if the others were to be kept. (I would rather have a redirect to polygon than regular polygon because the former has a large table under the "Naming polygons" subsection with a column "Remarks" where all this information can be entered.) Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it does not. Neither place of Descartes' text imply that angles, or even edges, are equal. Thank you for this counter-example. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"redirects would cause a considerable havoc in interwiki links" Is that a problem? Many other Wikipedias have many articles about non-notable undiscovered period 8 elements which we don't. In fact, we have a similar situation here, in which we have many articles about polygons that are not notable by themselves that could stand better merged into Polygon after removing the trivial boilerplate information (the perimeter and area formulas and the star polygons) and merging the actual content (special characteristics that only apply to the polygon in question - there are not many of these - can be merged into the table at Polygon#Naming polygons, and the Petrie polygons can be merged into the main Petrie polygon article). The undiscovered period 8 elements also used to have articles here; they had only boilerplate information and sometimes some material specific to the element in question. These were all merged to extended periodic table. Why should we not do the same for these polygon articles, merging them into Polygon#Naming polygons, which already has a place where the actual content in these articles can be placed? Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW extended periodic table was actually quite bad choice for a target. Some months ago I changed several of that redirects to superactinide, but it is also not what we need, because put an emphasis to chemical properties (as well as "extended periodic table" does, certainly). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is going off topic, but what do you think would be a suitable target? Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep all. Strong keep for chiliagon and megagon due to the sourced philosophical material. Keep for the others due to the nontrivial mathematical information (if we follow the principles in WP:NUMBER, they would pass). I see no reason for deleting the useful information in these articles, which would not fit into the table in polygon. Furthermore, the nomination doesn't seem to have any argument for these polygons failing notability guidelines. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- What information are you referring to? The information about the Petrie polygons can be put into the Petrie polygon article, the philosophical material has fit into the table in polygon for about 3 years (from 2008 to 2011), the formulas for perimeter, area, etc. are simply trivial derivations from the general formulas at polygon and regular polygon, and star polygons can exist for any number of sides. If we remove the trivial formulas, the articles are extremely short, having only one nontrivial property each: either the Petrie polygons or the philosophical information. Hence they are not notable enough on their own and could be better merged into polygon. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  - I don't think the information would fit in the table, and in the case of the philosophical information, it would be much harder to find there. In the case of both chiliagon and megagon, the mathematical information sheds light on the philosophical information; removing it makes the article less comprehensible to philosophers. Furthermore, these polygons are all discussed extensively in the literature, thereby satisfying WP:N. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    - Anyone searching for chiliagon would still be brought to the right place (the place with the relevant information, in this case the philosophical information). This information has fit in the table before: see this old revision. Note how short the chiliagon article is when all the trivial information is removed. This old revision shows all the content in the chiliagon article that could be merged. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      - (1) The information on the megagon was never in that table. (2) The mathematical properties and the images are necessary context for the philosophical material. (3) All these articles are potentially expandable, given the material in the literature, and then even your suggested cut-down version would not fit in that table. -- 202.124.74.111 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        (1) I have just merged the information in the megagon article into the table. It fits even better than the chiliagon article does, being shorter. (2) The only context is that these polygons have so many sides that the mind cannot accurately visualize them (this was not deleted, as it forms part of the actual content) and that regular polygons (which is already wikilinked) converge to a circle as the number of sides they have increases. (3) Could you give examples of the information you would want to expand the articles with? Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        You have not merged the mathematical information on how close the regular chiliagon and the megagon are to a circle, which is necessary to the philosophical material, nor have you merged the images. As to expansion, there is extensive literature even just on Descartes and the chiliagon (or indeed Kant and the chiliagon) which would allow for massive article expansion. I'm beginning to suspect you failed to do a WP:BEFORE check. -- 202.124.73.129 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        Regular polygon already includes the material on polygons converging to a circle, although I can insert that into the polygon article if you want. The images need not be merged; the megagon image is really just a circle (its file name describes it as a circle), and the chiliagon image was not merged the last time chiliagon was redirected. All these sources simply support the same philosophical point about the chiliagon; they don't add more content to the article. All they add to the article is that Descartes wasn't the only one to make this point. I'm going to log out now, so I may not see further comments for some time (perhaps until tomorrow). Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        Well, I think the mathematical material on how close the chiliagon and the megagon are to the circle is essential to understanding the use of the example in the philosophical material. It's one thing to say "a megagon has 1,000,000 sides" and another to say "for a circle the size of the Earth, with a circumference of 40,000 kilometres, the difference between the perimeter of the megagon and the circumference of the circle comes to less than 1/16 millimetre." Also, I've begun an expansion of chiliagon, so your entry in the polygon table is already outdated. -- 202.124.73.129 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        I already updated this yesterday. If you insist on adding the mathematical material, I will only add the statements about the differerences between the area/perimeter of the polygon and the area/perimeter of the circumscribed circle, because it is the only relevant information that might help in understanding (but I think it could be solved better with a sentence in polygon or regular polygon stating that as the number of sides of a regular polygon increases, it becomes closer and closer to a circle. Such a statement is already in Regular polygon.) Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep The article appears to be more of a philosophy article than a math article. I really just question the wisdom of delete/merging it. I see no need for that. Greg Bard (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)
- What are your opinions on the other articles (megagon, triskaidecagon, tetradecagon, pentadecagon, hexadecagon, octadecagon, enneadecagon, icosagon and triacontagon)? Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The megagon article has about two sentences of interesting content, all of which pertains to a regular megagon and could easily be included in regular polygon. Chiliagon maybe is worth its own article, I don't feel strongly. The others seem to me completely worthless and basically all the material on them amounts to special cases of things better covered in other articles. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. IMO the 13-gon to 20-gon (except the 17-gon) are not notable enough, and the 10-gon could easily be merged. I don't feel as strongly about the 1000-gon, but I would prefer it to be merged as it is quite a short article (after removing the trivial information). Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Surely these don't deserve articles of their own. These obscure polygons with large numbers of sides might collectively make a good single article. Rschwieb (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- This has been proposed before; see Talk:Polygon#I recommend a "list of polygons" as a compromise. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I've added some more material on this highly notable polygon. There's masses of material out there, passing WP:GNG by an enormous margin. The important issues for AfD is surely not what the article looks like now, but what the potential state is, given the existing reliable sources. -- 202.124.72.231 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment All your sources are supporting the same philosophical point about the chiliagon about the difference between the intellect and the imagination: that the chiliagon cannot be imagined clearly, but our intellect can tell us clear things about it. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Yes, and that's a notable use of the chiliagon, with literally hundreds of reliable references. -- 202.124.75.138 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    - Since you have only one notable use of the chiliagon (which could be merged), why would you need hundreds of reliable references? One or two would be enough. Please see Knowledge:Citation overkill. Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      - Because the different philosophers are referring to the chiliagon to make several quite distinct philosophical points. Are you ~~somehow trying to make the chiliagon seem less notable, to justify your rather dubious nomination?~~ completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of reliable references are an indicator of strong notability? -- 202.124.73.237 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To the IP editor: Knowledge:Assume_good_faith --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How many different philosophical points are there? I see only two in the Chiliagon article: the one I noted above, and "intuition is not necessarily founded on the evidence of the senses". Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Descartes talks about intellect vs imagination. Hume is talking about the process by which one comes to know properties of the chiliagon. Poincaré is saying we have an intuition which does not depend on the senses. -- 202.124.72.81 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Among the smaller polygons in this list, the Triskaidecagon seems to have some notability in relation to its constructibility, which is referred to in a number of books. The Pentadecagon is also notable because of its appearance in Euclid. -- 202.124.73.237 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:Notability (numbers)#Integers for the sort of thing one should be looking for. Do they have three unrelated interesting mathematical properties? Or even one very interesting property? Do they have a cultural significance? Are they listed in a book about such things? The Triskaidecagon most definitely does not satisfy notability. As for the Pentadecagon, it has slightly more to say for itself but still doesn't make the bar that I can see. I'm happy for them to be included with other pentagons but that's about it. Basically they are just words for various numbers and angle. practically everything in those articles is just made up by some editor here as far as I can see. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Made up? Surely not! It is a fact, for example, that construction of a regular pentadecagon is Proposition XVI of Book IV of Euclid's Elements (you can easily find a copy online). There are also theorems on (not necessarily regular) pentadecagons in extremal polygon theory (see e.g. Charles Audet, Pierre Hansen and Frédéric Messine, Isoperimetric Polygons of Maximum Width, Springer, 2009). The construction of the regular triskaidecagon is discussed in detail in the article "Angle trisection, the heptagon, and the triskaidecagon" (AM Gleason, Amer. Math. Monthly, 95(3), 1988) which I think is also enough to satisfy WP:N. I'm sure a WP:BEFORE check would find similar evidence of notability for all the other polygons on the list. -- 202.124.75.208 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we even have reliable sources on the precise names of these polygons? The experts disagree, which prompted the move discussion at Talk:Triskaidecagon (which later led to this AfD). You have not answered the other questions Dmcq posed: "Do they have three unrelated interesting mathematical properties? Or even one very interesting property? Do they have a cultural significance? Are they listed in a book about such things?" If not, they could be merged into a single list of polygons or perhaps into Polygon#Naming polygons. (In fact, I feel that even one very interesting property is not enough to justify a separate article, and that at least three properties would be necessary.) Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The closest to a single very interesting property amongst them would I think be the 17 sided regular polygon and I think the content for that property is better handled in constructible polygon and referenced from regular polygon and polygon. The philosophic bit about the chiliagon is better handled in Meditations on First Philosophy - in fact I'd redirect chiliagon to that instead of polyygon as it is of zero interest in a mathematical sense. Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the chiliagon is completely uninteresting mathematically. Philosophically, it seems to have some interest, but there is still the list of polygons solution that would have the merged articles for all the n-gons with n > 12 and have brief summaries for those with n < 13. I have no strong opinions about merging the 17-gon, but if it is merged, I would prefer it to redirect to constructible polygon (and for the construction animation to be kept). Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Handling the philosophy in Meditations on First Philosophy is a TERRIBLE idea, given that several different philosophers use the polygon to make slightly different points (about epistemology, about the nature of thought, and about mathematical intuition). I'd also note that it's perfectly within the rules for an article to include both mathematics and philosophy. Indeed, it's essential in this case, since the philosophical reader needs to know what a chiliagon actually is. If it makes you happier, you could remove WP:WikiProject Mathematics endorsement of the chiliagon article, but the literally hundreds of book and journal sources for it's use as a philosophical example make it highly notable. As to naming, I'd say the Amer. Math. Monthly article is a WP:RS for both name and notability of the triskaidecagon. For the pentadecagon, the 3 interesting properties are: (1) construction by Euclid, (2) vertex property, (3) theorems in the book Isoperimetric Polygons of Maximum Width. Several other polygons on the list also have interesting vertex properties, constructibility properties, and Petrie properties, again making three in each case.-- 202.124.72.81 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "vertex properties" are all covered in Tiling by regular polygons#Combinations of regular polygons that can meet at a vertex. Even then, they are not really interesting as the polygons can fill one vertex but cannot tile the whole plane. The constructibility properties are all handled in constructible polygon. Finally, the Petrie polygon properties are all covered in Petrie polygon, and with the exception of the 18-gon, 20-gon and 30-gon, which are Petrie polygons for the exceptional E_n or H_n families (the only F_n polytope has the dodecagon as its Petrie polygon, and the only G_n polytope is already a polygon - the hexagon), all these properties are not interesting; every polygon can be a Petrie polygon for a simplex, and every even-sided polygon can be a Petrie polygon for a hypercube, orthoplex or demicube. So there are only two interesting properties for the 15-gon. The Amer. Math. Monthly article is a reliable source, but does it make the 13-gon notable? How many interesting properties of the 13-gon does it give? It seems to give only one (construction using angle trisection). (There is no agreement on whether to call the 13-gon a "triskaidecagon" or "tridecagon", BTW. One source, however reliable it may be, would not be enough; you would need to cite sources on both sides, and then select the name that is more widely used as the article title.) I still think chiliagon could be merged into a list of polygons that would cover all the n-gons with n > 12, and have brief summaries for those with n < 13. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the 13-gon is constructible with compass, straightedge and angle trisector simply because 13 is a Pierpont prime. If you think the "vertex properties", constructibility properties and Petrie polygons in all these articles is sufficient to make the article notable, what do you think of creating an article for the 24-gon or 42-gon? Both of these can fill space around one vertex (3.8.24 and 3.7.42, respectively); the 24-gon is constructible with compass and straightedge, while the 42-gon additionally needs an angle trisector; and the 24-gon is a Petrie polygon for the A₂₃, BC₁₂ and D₁₃ families, while the 42-gon is a Petrie polygon for the A₄₁, BC₂₁ and D₂₂ families (the A_n, BC_n and D_n families are all infinite). By your criteria, they are both notable; however, they do not seem notable enough to me. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you referred to WP:NUMBERS above, saying that these articles satisfy the principles there. Dmcq is referring to the same page and is saying the exact opposite. I would be interested to hear why you think they do satisfy the principles, since Dmcq has already stated his reasons above. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

These facts could easily be included in the table at Polygon#Naming polygons. Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but why would you want to cram dozens of articles into polygon, which is already lengthy? -- 202.124.72.81 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What content? The stuff in them is just computer generated puffery in the main that nobody is ever going to want to actually use in any way and anything of worth is already somewhere else already. The pictures and formulae are nearly all purely decorative. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no actual content in these articles that isn't already somewhere else, why should we not merge them? There is nothing to merge anyway, so a redirect to the chosen target article should be enough. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but de gustibus non est disputandum. -- 202.124.74.106 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I am unable to understand how my or Dmcq's comment qualifies as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The examples listed there do not seem to be similar to the comments we have posted above. Could you explain your rationale for classifying our comments as WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Subsidiary keep for the Heptadecagon added to this AfD on 19 April 2012, highly notable for its construction (see these books). Closing admin: please delay closure till 7 days after 19 April. -- 202.124.74.106 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment That is the only interesting property of the 17-gon (and only applies to the regular 17-gon anyway). It could easily be merged into constructible polygon, along with the other basic constructible polygons that are not notable enough for their own article (the 257-gon and the 65537-gon: articles for these two don't even exist on the English Knowledge, but do on the Italian Knowledge). Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  - BTW, I would accept the existence of the heptadecagon article iff it is brought up to the standards of the Italian article (it:Eptadecagono), where the one interesting property is elaborated upon greatly. Before this is done, the current content could and, IMHO, should still be merged into constructible polygon. (The same applies to the 257-gon and 65537-gon potential articles. I am curious as to why you do not propose that they be created, even though I agree with you that the 17-gon article could reasonably exist.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep I have a few process issues with this nomination.

First, my talk page comments were invoked as though they were a rationale for not deleting. While I will stand by my arguments for notability and length in this discussion, my third point would have been precluded by WP:OTHERLANGS. This was my argument that, if notability for the article holds, because of the length and the fact that other language articles exist, merging was not appropriate. I also would have appreciated some notice that this discussion was occurring, especially since my arguments were being used.
Second, the mass nomination of this article, which has a long history in philosophy and metaphysics, with other articles which do not have this background or well-referenced text, seems disingenuous. It seems like an attempt to put this particular polygon in the same category of notability as, say, the 30-gon. Note, I am not conceding here that the other polygons are not notable, only that they have different properties and that the notability of one is not dependent on any other. Except for cases where the articles have nearly the same structure and content, these articles should not be listed in the same discussion.

To address some of the other arguments above

The fact that the myriagon article is a redirect is not relevant here; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The chiliagon is the object that has become notable and cited in other works. It is like other gedankenexperimenten that have been invented over the years that gained their own independent notability.
The text existed in the polygon article because, as was within any editor's right to be bold, the original article was merged there. Having edited this article some time before that, and then coming back to it afterwards, I found the solution (insertion of all the philosophic text into a table in a mathematics article) cumbersome, and removed the redirect. This article has more than enough text and references to stand on its own, so there needs to be a strong rationale to re-merge it.

Finally, I do not see any arguments about why this article should be deleted, only why the content could be moved to other articles. This makes me wonder why this is at AfD at all, and why this couldn't have been resolved at talk.

This discussion seem to be striking a nerve for some editors. I wonder if it is due to the form of this article, rather than the content. Perhaps if this wasn't styled like the other regular polygon articles, this would read more like a philosophy article. I propose removing the infobox, keeping the illustration, and moving the mathematical details to the end of the article—it is still a real mathematical object, so there is no sense in removing it altogether. Cmprince (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Subsidiary keep for the chiliagon article itself. It has zilch maths interest but I guess if philosophers use it as a general example like Russell's teapot then it has some general notability in itself. The lead should be updated to reflect its particular interest and that teapot article shows how. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.111 (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 202.124.75.97 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I don't really care about the individual notability of geometric figures, but the article content in each case appears to be suitably encyclopedic and bundling them all together would create an overlong, inconvenient-to-navigate article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The "vertex properties" could go into Tiling by regular polygons, the Petrie polygons could go into Petrie polygon and the constructibility could go into Constructible polygon. The remaining content (and there would be not much remaining) could then be merged into List of polygons. The end result is that the material is separated into many different articles, but the material would always be moved to articles where it has greater relevance. Currently, these polygon articles seem like a collection of random trivial information with a few interesting properties scattered within. A centralised list of polygons would not only allow the interesting properties to be found more easily (because the specific polygon pages would redirect to that list), but would also not be overly long (as all the properties that can be covered elsewhere are moved elsewhere). The list of polygons would naturally include links to Tiling by regular polygons, Petrie polygon and Constructible polygon wherever necessary, but the actual material relevant to those articles would be moved to those three articles. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep up to heptadecagon, Weak keep up to icosagon, No opinion for the others. The heptadecagon is notable for the reasons given above, and to the detractors that say that the umptiumpthagon would be included as well, I reply by saying that I am explicitly and shamelessly advocating a double standard here. The precedent is there in WP:NUMBERS, the very pseudo-legalese that has been invoked above, wherein it is admitted that we ought to have a complete initial series, even if, say, 38 is less interesting than the others. So, decide the others on their own individual merits, but for the "initial series", decide on a stopping point. Of course it's going to be a dodgy judgement call no matter what, but, as I argue, heptadecagon should be in. Now, I admit octadecagon and enneadecagon are duds, but icosagon is half-decent and is a very natural stopping point. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, if all the articles under this deletion discussion were merged and redirected (which was what I proposed), we would have an initial series from the 1-gon to the 12-gon. This series already includes the most interesting and widely used polygons, so I don't see why we need to go beyond it. The polygon navbox would then have "1-12 sides" as the first row, "Others" for the apeirogon (which is a very special case that does not fit into a general series, being an infinite-gon), and "Star polygons" for the regular stars from 5- to 12-sided. Also note that the articles for the star polygons stop at 12 (the dodecagram), so it would make sense for the articles for the convex polygons to also stop at 12 (the dodecagon). Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, the precedent in WP:NUMBERS for a complete initial series assumes that there is a number n which is somehow so much less interesting than the numbers less than it that it normally would not deserve a separate article, but some numbers greater than it are more interesting and are in fact interesting enough to merit articles. However, consider the 13-gon. It is definitely less interesting than the polygons with fewer sides. Are there any polygons with a greater number of sides than it that are more interesting? The closest claim to this is the 17-gon, which however only comprises of one major point (its constructibility), which could be merged into Constructible polygon. Hence, merging and redirect the 13-gon would not produce any gaps in the initial series. The same argument applies to the 14-gon, 15-gon, etc. Hence, we could reasonably stop at the dodecagon (12-gon). (The main purpose for an unbroken initial series is for the reader's convenience; however, for a similar example from a different field, note that we do not have articles for element 123 and element 125, even though there is an unbroken initial series of articles up to element 122, and elements 124 and 126 are also notable enough to have articles. Readers do not have problems with this, due to the presence of a navigational template that provides links to all the elements with articles: {{Compact extended periodic table}}. Since there is also a navbox here, not having an initial series should not be a problem either.) Double sharp (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 John F. Kennedy Airport runway incursion

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

Not notable. WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:PERSISTENCE ...William 01:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - utterly fails WP:GNG (not to mention WP:AIRCRASH). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect a summary paragraph under John F. Kennedy International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per William and The Bushranger. This doesn't even warrant a sentence at the airport article IMO, let alone a paragraph. YSSYguy (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete, totally non-notable non-event. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete as not-notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete -- Clearly NN. Might warrant a sentence or two in the airport article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Redirect, already covered at Aerogal#Accidents_and_incidents

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kratz elematary school

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

Non-notable school. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete- Mistitled Kratz Elementary School. Unreferenced; references available online do not establish notability; Ritenour School District not yet created, redirect to school districts listed at St. Louis County, Missouri#Unified school districts without explanation would be inappropriate. Dru of Id (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Dru of Id's rationale why redirect is not particularly suitable in this case. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Attia Bano Qamar

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

Appairs not to be notable according to WP:NMODEL. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a Pakistani Norwegian, very well informed about Pakistani community in Norway. If being one from Pakistani community, I have not heard about Attia Bano Qamar before, how can I expect from ethnic Norwegian to know about her. I don't think she is notable enough to have an article about her.Mehmda (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are enough links to see that Attia Bano was actively involved in the Norway community. Mehmda is totally ignoring the links, and according to Mehmda those links are not right, because Mehmda has not heard, repeat "heard" about Attia Bano. There are many great news links of Attia Ba-no both in Canada and Norway. Please check the credibility of the links and no this article must not be deleted!--Sonisona 14:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Briefly mentioned in a TV-program doesn't qualify for notability, neither do articles in Se-her (Norvegian website for Se&Hør), as it doubtly qualify as a Knowledge:RS. When it comes to participators at Norwegian reality-shows, usually only winners or participators known for other reasons are notable. The fact she doesn't have an own article in Norwegian, makes it unlikely she is notable (at the other side, I haven't seen any trace of her at any AfD in Norwegian). Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oslo is not a big city as Toronto, same goes for the Pakistani community which is much too small and less scattered than in Canada or Toronto. If One Pakistani turn out be notable, then there appear article about that person in papers like VG, Dagbladet, Aftenposten etc, in some case when the person is not that notable, we do HEAR stories about him/her in Oslo at Pakistani barbershop etc. Since, I am a pakistani origin Norwegian, lives in Oslo, so I claim to know about the notable pakistanies in Norway. But I don't claim to know about notable pakistani in Canada or Toronto. I find it so strange that Sonia, living in Canada, claims to know more about the notability of a particular Pakistani Norwegian than those who live in Oslo, Norway. Even Grrahnbahr does not believe in the notability of Attia Bano Qamar. I think the best soloution is to ask some other Norwegian origin admin about Attia Bano. I do know about more notable person with pakistani Origin like Bibi Razia, she started her acting career in early eighties with the theatre play named "Pakkis", her last work is Taxi. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0713638/ But we don't find her profile in wikipedia, neither in Norwegian, nor in English. The reason is that she does not have any Sonia behind her, who can market her so vigorously. While, I find few autobiographies, written by those who are not notable but they managed to do that. I hope, some admin would look in other articles too. I repeat again, Attia bano is not a notable person, unknown to Pakistani Norwegians and also to ethnic norwegians.Mehmda (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Trevj (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - filelake shoe 10:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was to keep the article. - filelake shoe 10:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee Gurga

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

Subject is a dentist who wrote a couple of poetry books and co-edits a magazine. Appears to fail wp:gng. Web search reveals several hits from brooksbookshaiku.com, the site of his co-editor at Modern Haiku, but little else of note. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep based on the broad range of sources and the several dates in his Google News search results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment "About 23 results" mostly small-time to unknown, such as The Pantagraph, חדשות רדיו קול חי‎ ("Radio News, The Voice of Life"), Slovenska tiskovna agencija / Slovenian Press Agency... Not seeing any notability here, I'm afraid. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Gurga appears to be one of the more famous of modern American poets and extensively famous within the realm of haiku. I have added some sources to the article that reflect this, as to make his notability more evident. Silver seren 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep per NYT, St. Louis dispatch sources evidencing notabiilty via WP:GNG. --joe decker 21:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. -- Trevj (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He meets #1. He is regarded as an important figure in modern poetry and especially within the realm of haiku, where he is highly cited by his peers. Silver seren 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anna Lundh

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

Non-notable person who competed in the non-notable pageant Miss Asia Pacific World 2011 which has been deleted. BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep: A notable figure in Sweden along the lines of similar reality-show winners in other countries that parlay their fame, somehow, into notability. See . The pageant appearance really has nothing to do with her notability.--Milowent • 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep First time I hear the name, but the coverage sure seems to be enough to satisfy me. And I agree with Milowent: the pageant appearance has nothing to do with this. Some of the claims in the article seem unsupported and it could use some rewriting, but that's another discussion. /Julle (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. No good sources were found during the discussion Shii (tock) 04:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rotary Club of New York at the United Nations

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

While the Rotary Club is notable, I'm not seeing how an individual unit of the Rotarians - even if at the UN - can be considered notable. Somebody help out a bit here? In addition, the article seems fairly promotional, but doesn't get so much that I'm inclined to G11 the article. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of the article and not a Rotarian member. I pledge for an extra article about the Rotary Club at the United Nations since this points out a unique convergence of a private business membership club and an international non-profit institution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopian Research (talk • contribs)
- Fair enough, but you need to explain to us why this is notable, with reliable sources, and in a way that it can be verified. If you can fix this, the article can stand. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Quick addendum: you need to basically add the sources as to why this unit (or whatever you call an individual club) is notable, accordingly. In and of itself, a UN based club may not be notable per our standards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that in the days to come. Please give me some time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopian Research (talk • contribs)
I added some info about the activities and hope the historical relevance becomes more clear. In regards to your statement "In and of itself, a UN based club may not be notable per our standards", I wanted to point out that there are other articles about UN based foundations such as Lucis Trust which have roster level consultative status which are not flagged for deletion. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopian Research (talk • contribs)
- It's not about relevance, it's about notability. What makes them notable? The links you need were in my first response to you. Please don't ignore those, because relevance, in this case, does not enter into it. Why is this notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable division of the main organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)