Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 7 - Knowledge

Source 📝

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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment "college essay". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Global Network for Peace and Anti-Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article quite literally advertises itself as an essay and is about a non-notable organization; no hits for "Global Network for Peace and Anti-Corruption Initiative" (the full name of the organization) on Google Books, News, or News archives except for this, which is behind a paywall but doesn't look like it focuses on the GNPAI in any depth. The sources present are either from the GNPAI or discuss more general topics (a possible case of synthesis). CtP (t • c) 23:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Article is obviously someone's college essay. Even includes the name of the professor it is being written for. Sperril (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge is not an essay area. I can also concur with the non-notability. Not quite sure if this is a college essay, but it still is non-notable neverless. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 00:08, 8 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -Scottywong| comment _ 17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

non-notable NFL official Go Phightins! (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. My understanding has been that "real" NFL referees who have appeared in games are deemed notable, per WP:NGRIDIRON (which refers to American football "figures", not just "players"). Also worth noting that Meyer has been selected to officiate in a Super Bowl. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I don't think he's notable with his career as an NFL official because... well... there just aren't articles written about officials by name. I'm confident that the guideline WP:NGRIDIRON does not extend to officials. However, he MIGHT be notable through other means, such as his college baseball career if there was significant coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's always been my understanding that NFL referees, like soccer refs and baseball umpires, are notable; another editor mentions this presumption at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials. Certainly, NFL crew chiefs do get a lot of attention; I could understand an argument that side judges like Meyer aren't quite as likely to get the same kind of coverage. On the other hand, Meyer was selected for a Super Bowl crew, which puts him up at the top of his profession; also, we do have a biographical source here, there's another one behind a paywall at the Star-Telegram, and a GNews search does turn up a number of other hits, albeit most of them are mentions in passing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 7 October 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 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

National Armed Forces of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there is nothing wrong with the subject, this article seems unsalvageable.

1. Nearly every single sentence is ungrammatical. 2. Most of the article amounts to blatant propaganda.

This is really the worst serious article I have ever seen on Knowledge, and I don't see how it could be salvaged. Cerberus™ (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep No way can we justify deleting the entire article on a national military given the importance of the topic. If the content is really unsalvageable, chop it back to a stub and then re-expand it. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it needs a rewrite, but it is clearly notable enough under any standards for an article, so should not be brought to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:57, 10 October 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 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 Cabinet of the United Kingdom#Historical. Michig (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This article serves no purpose. It only shows information which is better accessed elsewhere. This information is already contained at Blair ministry, Brown ministry and Cameron ministry. These pages are linked together at List of British governments. They are superior in every respect this one, which is hidden away, and has bizarre title. Nominating this, per a discussion at Template talk:David Cameron cabinet 1 vertical. RGloucester (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Frankly that figure sounds dubious. Where do you get it from and are you sure it isn't vulnerable to mistake. If it is absolutely true, how long has that been the case? And is there any way of knowing whether there are different IP addresses accessing it? Again assuming the figure is correct, so what? the article as it exists is almost completely unrelated to the section to which you suggest we redirect. So what good would the redirect do for those 10 people who you say view that article every day? -Rrius (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Having looked at this, the article was just barely over an average of 8 views in the month of June, which doesn't seem much different from other months. It is implausible that this article has been reached terribly often from searches, which leaves links. It was linked from United Kingdom general election, 2005 as a part of a wikilink for the phrase "government positions" in a sentence about the post-election reshuffle and from Cabinet of the United Kingdom in the "See also" section. It seems more probable that those views come from a combination of the the editor(s) who created and built the article and from people using the "See also" link. The former is a poor reason to keep it because a redirect won't replace the private garden, and the latter is silly reason to keep it since we don't as a rule link to redirects that link back to the page. If there was the barest connection between the existing article and the history section or there were a series of links to the article for which the history section were a reasonable destination, it would make sense. But neither is the case. There is no connection between the section and the article other than they both have to do with the Cabinet and chronology, and there is no mainspace link beside the one at the article you propose as the redirect. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-notable list of commencement speakers. WP:NOTDIR. GrapedApe (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 9 October 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 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 Koi No Yokan. (non-admin closure)  HueSatLum 14:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I only list this at AfD instead of PROD because there would likely be objections; editors previously removed a different editor's notability tag. This clearly does not meet the criteria in WP:NSONG, not having been given any awards, placed on charts or been covered by many other bands. I'd suggest a merger into the album article, but there's very little content here outside a sentence or two. Hence I think delete is the best course. Batard0 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Redirect It is really a shame that there wasn't enough information on internet or any other sort of sources to keep the article. In my opinion, we can just redirect it to "Koi No Yokan", as it was before, instead of deleting the article as a whole. As the content of the article is already merged into the album's article, that seems more effective and practical to me. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the album. It's simply a track made available for free download as an album taster. Calling it a 'promotional single' is a bit of a nonsense. It doesn't seem to have received any significant coverage, and what coverage there is is mostly about the album, so it did its job. --Michig (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect - I wouldn't expect all songs to receive awards or significant coverage but it helps establish appropriate articles. Google News provided mentions through the album or the release date so it's probably too soon for the single to establish itself independent from the album. SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources must be independent of the subject to establish notability. WilyD 07:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No evidence that it passes WP:ORG. An entity with 140-odd members - yes, there are a couple of books on the subject, but both are published by someone within the organisation, and that seems to be about it as far as coverage goes. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - The group is not notable at this time and, considering that it was only founded five years ago, it may be too soon therefore not historical. Google News found one link here but it mentions one of the books, not the group itself. My Google Books search provided the same result as the nominator's, one book written by a member. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – Size of membership is not a determining factor under the referenced notability guidelines; there are much smaller groups with entries in Knowledge. Although the two books were written by somebody within the group, their subject matter was not the group itself, but was rather on the philosophy which the group was founded to promote. Neither book was self-published, and both are popularly available (Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc). Since appearing on Knowledge, the page has been linked-to in 14 other articles; has been categorized within Ethics organizations, Etiquette, Codes of conduct, and Feminism; and has been included in the Philosophy portal and the Philosophy WikiProject. The article’s talk page notes that the group and-or its philosophy has been the subject of non-local newspaper articles, interviews, and its books are being used in college curricula. The article itself has received high ratings as objectively written, complete in its scope, and well-cited throughout. Sg647112c (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    So, in order:
    • If their subject matter isn't the group itself then the group is even more poorly cited.
    • The fact that it's linked to in 14 other articles does not mean the subject is notable, particularly when you made the links
    • The article talkpage notes that you claim it's been covered by non-local newspapers. If I posted on the article talkpage "This has not been covered by non-local newspapers!" I can't then cite myself as evidence that it's not been covered. That's not how things work. If you've got coverage, show that coverage. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The books' subject matter that introduce the idea, and the group that support the idea, are as linked as any such combination would be. I did make some of the first links when I wrote the article, but I was happy when other people made other links to the group - including the direct categorizing of the page, and its inclusions in the Portal and in the WikiProject (which I do not know how to do). I will work to get proper links to the aforementioned newspaper cites in place; cites to the interviews might be more difficult. In creating this article, our goal was not to "spam" Knowledge, but to improve upon and add to it. Sg647112c (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • So, not linked at all? For an analogy; if I write a book on philosophy, this does not afford notability to the Cardiff Society of Philosophers. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Your analogy is humorous if not entirely misleading. In this situation, a gentleman wrote a book detailing twelve points by which any gentleman could live his life. Then, a group of people developed around that book, and those points, agreeing to do just that (i.e.: live their lives by them). Since being started, the group has grown almost entirely by word-of-mouth and through rather-limited public exposure, averaging a new member every ten days since its formation over 5 years ago. Sg647112c (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
              • So a closer analogy would be that someone created a Cardiff Society of Oliver's Book About Philosophy, and I claimed that was notable because it's based on books? Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH spectacularly. The majority of the "sources" provided do not provide significant coverage of the subject; some don't provide any coverage at all - the subject isn't even mentioned. The others are from the subject's own website - certainly not independent enough to be considered reliable sources. The two books one the list are written by one of the group's founders. At best, they could be considered primary sources but I'm not sure they would even be considered reliable enough to fit that bill. I'm not sure what's going on with their publisher but it looks to be at least partially self-publishing, if not commissioned publishing. But that doesn't really matter - they would still need reliable secondary sources to back up what they're saying about the organisation itself. And that's if they say anything at all - they are, from what I can see, "philosophies" or "ways of thinking" rather than a book that provides details about the organisation that has started around those ideas. So I would suggest they don't actually provide "significant coverage" of the organisation at all - just the ideas on which it is based. Not even close to meeting WP guidelines as far as I am concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems that my hopes for this to be a constructive discussion rather than just a forum for editors to trash the article and insult the author were severely misplaced. Seeing as how the decision to delete this article is a forgone conclusion, what will Chivalry-Now need to accomplish when (or if, given this one-sided experience) this article may be accepted in the future? Sg647112c (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BURDEN, many of these issues should have been considered before the article was created. The subject needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG. If it did now then it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. If it does in the future (if "significant coverage" in " reliable sources" becomes available) then it will likely meet the criteria for inclusion. But you also need to have a read of WP:COI and WP:OWN and understand why COI editing is always strongly discouraged... Mostly because it prompts comments like yours above. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV is a good start but it is not the only requirement. The subject needs to meet the criterias at WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. COI editing is not prohibited but it is "strongly discouraged" for a range of reasons, including the fact that COI editors tend to add material they like, rather than material supported by legitimate reliable sources. The argument goes that if a subject was truly notable (by WP standards) then uninvolved editors would be prompted to write an article by the existence of reliable sources. That's not always the case and there are exceptions. But we also have WP:AFC to avoid some of these issues from the start. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A close connection to the subject also makes ownership issues more likely - so when something is nominated for deletion for non-compliance with policy, the original author sees it as a personal insult rather than the routine enforcement of policy that it is. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help, Stalwart111, I have copied the page over to my sandbox so that my work won't be lost. I'm sure that we will meet the notability standards in due course; once more of our work is covered in the media (we are working on a piece with the BBC in London right now). I have no problems with critiques of my work. Out here in the real-world, I'm a scientist and I'm quite familiar with the peer-review process. But that process never includes the offensive tone taken by Ironholds in his comments directed at me. Sg647112c (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)
  • I won't comment on the commentary, except to say that we could probably all do with a civility booster-shot - myself included. Regardless, userfication can be a great solution. It allows you to continue working on the article away from the main article space until it is ready. That way you can continue to add references as they become available. When you think the article might "fall over the line" against WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH then you can either put it back into the main space or take it to WP:AFC and ask an uninvolved editor to help you create it (so as to avoid as future WP:COI issues). In general terms, Knowledge is not the place to WP:PROMO a group because Knowledge only reflects what has already been covered in news media, books and scholarly papers. The general public ("non editors") often think Knowledge would be a good place to put some information about their group/product/cause to "raise awareness" and get it media coverage elsewhere, but it doesn't really work that way. Once it has been covered elsewhere, it can be covered here, but not the other way around. I, for one, would be more than happy to help you create an article once some reliable sources are available. Add a note to my talk page when you are ready to go. I'll also add a note asking for this AFD to be closed so you can work on it in peace. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Excusme me, but isn't an International group count as "significant"? Do not two books that sparked the creation of the group count as "media"? If this article had issues, I think they'd have been brought up, and appropriately so, might I add, when the article was being created. The repetitious use of "It's not Significant" or "Its sources don't provide enough coverage." does not help your case, as droning out logical/reasonable discussion with repetition is more spamming than this page could ever be by any stretch of the imagination. If a book has a site made, and a member of that site tries to create a wikipedia article about a concept/code of ethics, and they did their job well enough that it was allowed to be posted up on wikipedia, where are this issues coming from? What have you against an article on a code of modernized male ethics? Just some thoughts to think on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.45 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC) — 152.1.222.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
In short, no. The books could not be considered "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" which is the standard required by WP:GNG. The terms quoted come from policies and citing those policies is exactly what editors are asked to do here. Your comment is complete nonsense and shows you have spent very little time trying to understand how Knowledge works before posting here - your first and only contribution to Knowledge (usually a pretty good sign someone offline has asked you to come here to "vote"). But Knowledge is not a democracy and this isn't a vote. Well-reasoned arguments citing policy will always be given more weight than WP:ILIKEIT arguments from WP:SPAs. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

fails WP:GNG, also there are some verifiability and blp issues going on Go Phightins! (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Article has no reliable independent sources. There is so much inappropriate material in here that it is hard to check carefully, but I don't see a clear claim of notability. I didn't find significant independent coverage through google. LeSnail (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. I read a comment above that suggested that there is no independent verification the awards exist and decided to have a look. The first one I tested, a Helen Hayes award in 1988, did NOT check out. The Joseph Jefferson Awards don't return an answer for Frisch. And the Outer Critics Circle awards doesn't show his name for 1984-1986; however, they don't show nominations, so this one was moot. And the Kennedy Centre site doesn't show his name anywhere. Is this some kind of elaborate hoax? There's an IMDB entry, website, etc. (On the down side, the Julianne Moore quote is cited nowhere on the Internet but on the website itself.) But when the first four cites I check return nothing, I have to think it would be better to delete this and start from scratch with only verifiable information. Ubelowme U 17:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of citations per the comment above mine. The fact that the previous commenter would encounter any difficulty verifying the level of accuracy of any fact simply means that this article does not conform to Knowledge's most basic guidelines. -Markeer 00:37, 8 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Summary of Reasons for Deletion

Article does not source the major claims made, including many exceptional claims identified by use of phrases like "designed to defeat", "not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis", "cannot be used against the algorithm", and others.

Article uses several sources written by the author of the algorithm, without 3rd party sources that specifically have mention of the Anti-Statistical Block Encryption (ASBE) algorithm. Other sources include press releases by ASBE author's company, whitepapers hosted on ASBE author's personal or company website.

Many references are attached to claims in article, but analysis of references show that claims are not supported.

StickyWidget (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Copied From Talk Page

Having difficulty finding 3rd party sources on ASBE algorithm in cryptography literature WP:SOURCES.

Doesn't meet internet search test WP:GOOGLETEST for 3rd party sources. Searches for "ASBE algorithm", "Anti-Statistical Block Encryption" only return articles by algorithm author, author's company, or press releases WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Some article sources were informative, but did not validate the claims in the article they were associated with, and were removed.

Statements in "Cryptographic Contributions" section are wholly unsourced once references were reviewed, and appear exceptional WP:REDFLAG.

Examples

  1. SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security Institute White Paper - Doesn't discuss how the ASBE "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article
  1. Department of the Arny Field Manual - Poorly cited, cannot find reference to ASBE or how it "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article
  2. Tech Target Definitions Types of Cryptanalysis defined - Informative, but doesn't discuss how ASBE "is not subject to attack models and methods of Cryptanalysis" as stated in WP article
  3. BIS/NSA ECCN 5D992.c Mass Market encryption with large key lengths - Informative, but doesn't provide evidence that the ASBE was evaluated as stated in WP article
  4. Prem Sobel Background Research New Statistical Algorithm and Work Leading to ASBE Algorithm - Doesn't validate statement that ASBE was " first encryption to use variable encryption keys that scale in size from 2008 bits up to 2 GB". Also, link is to website that appears to be self published by author of algorithm (Prem Sobel), and is not a 3rd party source
  5. Prem Sobel White Paper ASBE Defeats Statistical Analysis and Other Cryptanalysi - Doesn't validate statement that ASBE was "first encryption to use variable encryption keys that scale in size from 2008 bits up to 2 GB". Additionally, whitepaper is written by author of ASBE algorithm (Prem Sobel), and is not a 3rd party source.
StickyWidget (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reformatted this afd, No comment on it's merit for now. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:37, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No coverage in independent sources. Official web site appears to have been abandoned and assigned to a German organization. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable group and it appears that the group never received significant coverage, I found a 1999 article here but it seems it was written by a COI and mainly focuses with a global warming event that they were hosting. Aside from this, I found results to an Australian version of this group. This was undoubtedly a noble cause but it is not notable to Knowledge standards. I have found results for what appears to be an irrelevant "Digital Greenhouse", this is one of the results. Although this news article also mentions that it was founded near the same time, it never mentions Oregon or "Network". Considering that the group was founded by a college professor, it is unlikely that it would've received significant coverage and probably mostly from school newspapers. However, I added "Oregon" to the search and found press releases here, here and here. I found a good article here but it only mentions twice, another article here that also only mentions three times and an extremely small mention here. There is also another mention here for an event. I also found another, what appears to be, a small mention here (scroll to the second to the last result). Unfortunately, it seems their sister group, Focus the Nation, also appears to be non-notable and advert-like thus I'll nominate that article later today. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • weak Delete SwisterTwister asked me to comment here. I would unhesitatingly say delete, except for the article in the Christian Science Monitor on one of their projects,. This is full feature coverage from an international newspaper. But it's about one specific aspect only, and SwisterTwister's evaluation of the other sources is correct. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Stone Award for Lifetime Literary Achievement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. marked for notability concerns since January 2012. nothing in gnews and 2 of the 3 sources given are primary sources. google indicates sources mainly connected with oregonstate.edu LibStar (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

please provide sources. Unusual large prize amount is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
universities worldwide sponsor 10s of 1000s of awards. This does not advance notability. In-depth coverage in third party sources does which is lacking here. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:11, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Krazy Kat#Animated adaptations and/or Krazy Kat filmography. Consensus is that the film is not notable enough for its own standalone article. -Scottywong| communicate _ 17:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Disputed prod. No claim of notability. No apparent notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable.TheLongTone (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The title appears to be misspelt, with the infobox and most sources giving Lambs Will Gamble (see e.g. IMDb).
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
There's a few more results if you search for this name. Google Books indicates coverage (without giving the full text) in
  • Edwin M. Bradley's The first Hollywood sound shorts, 1926-1931 (McFarland, 2005)
  • Graham Webb's The animated film encyclopedia: a complete guide to American shorts, features and sequences 1900-1979 (McFarland, 2000)
It may still not be notable, but might be merged or redirected to Krazy Kat#Animated adaptations. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:08, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Look, I think it's great that "he company’s experts have been consulted for articles in The Financial Times ... and trade journals", but this isn't the same as coverage of the company, which is lacking. Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, thanks for your comments. I think my phrasing was not clear originally, so I will recast the sentences. More importantly, I also have some new references to support the first couple of sections, which are generally about the company, which I will incorporate this week: • Here’s a good one covering the pharmaceutical side of the business - http://www.hospitalhealthcare.com/default.asp?title=IMC%E2%80%99s_drug-monitoring_systems&page=article.display&article.id=29242 • Here’s a recent one about shock and vibration monitoring, which includes the following sentence - says Ian Robinson, group MD at The IMC Group, which has developed devices for shock and vibration monitoring that connect wirelessly across a site to deliver data to control or operations centres) - http://www.wireless-mag.com/Features/22462/Oil_companies_turn_to_wireless.aspx • This piece confirms that Hanwell sponsored the Museum Utopias conference - http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/museumstudies/museum-utopias • The following four links might also be good validation for Hanwell - http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/floorplan/1289 or http://source.theengineer.co.uk/measurement-quality-control-and-test/process-and-environmental-testing/temperature-sensors/hanwell-provides-wireless-temperature-monitoring/321611.article or http://www.museumsassociation.org/suppliers/find-a-supplier/24108?FILTER=ix_mode%20(rel%3D1%20imp%3D1)%20(with%20organisation_main_body%20from%20h%20to%20hzzz%20and%20(%22Y%22%20in%20ma_auth_org_is_supplier))%20sort%20%40icase%20%40collate%201%20(organisation_main_body)%20(organisation_main_body)&SORT=%40ascending%20%40icase%20organisation_main_body&RECNUM=7&P=0&N=20&referrer=NODE25366 or http://www.azonano.com/suppliers.aspx?SupplierID=854 Thanks for your time, and for bringing this to my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Danson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Todd Danson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Independent coverage of the company has been added. If this is sufficient, please remove the AfD notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Danson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see that some further citations have been added to this article which now validate its content. Can the AfD notice now be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njhenderson (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Njhenderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Several independent sources are provided as citations for the article. I think it's also very clear which IMC Group is referred to. There may be scope to strengthen the article in places, but I don't think the issues raised warrant deletion at this point. Njhenderson (talk) 16:06, 10 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Knowledge is not a dictionary or a language manual, and it is doubtful whether a list of expressions in a language has a place here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. A description of Thai idioms, including summaries of widely accepted scholarly treatments, would probably make a useful encyclopedia entry. In its current state, however, this article is an indiscriminate list of idioms and translations. That seems to run afoul of WP:NOTDIC and the criteria for stand-alone lists. I guess this adds up to a weak delete argument, although I do think the topic (under the name "Thai language idioms" rather than "List of...") is worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If lists of idioms in general are not to be considered to have a place here, as suggested by the nominator, then wouldn't a better way to test the waters to be to nominate "List of English language idioms" for deletion? Then there would be a better chance for editors of English Knowledge to judge whether this type of content attracts significant coverage in independent reliable sources, because potential sources would mostly be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Then what basis do you have for your bold assertion that it is doubtful whether a list of expressions in a language has a place here, if it's not to be decided in the normal way, by considering coverage in reliable sources? And if you do have a basis for it then why pick on Thai idioms rather than English ones? It would be much easier to make such a general case by considering an article that readers of English Knowledge will be able to evaluate more easily, whatever form that evaluation might take. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
"Considering coverage in reliable sources" is "the normal way" of deciding whether an article should be deleted for failing to satisfy the notability guidelines, but that is not the issue here, so reliable sources are irrelevant. Whether a topic has substantial coverage in reliable sources is only one of the issues which decides whether we have an article on the topic. Knowledge is not a dictionary, and it is a policy that we don't have articles which do nothing but give the meaning of a word or expression, no matter how many reliable sources there are. It is not clear to me that simply including several words or expressions in one article, rather than giving each one a separate article, makes any difference to the "not a dictionary" principal. As for "why pick on Thai idioms rather than English ones", I didn't "pick on" anything: I happened to see this article, and didn't happen to see the one on English idioms, that's all. AS for being able to evaluate the article more easily, I don't see that what language is involved makes any difference to how easy it is to decide whether or not the policy that Knowledge is not a dictionary applies to an article containing nothing but a list of expressions and definitions of them. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 10:04, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-notable commercial product. Sources given are product's website and a blog about product creator. Notability is not claimed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

:: The following text was found on the article's talk page: (Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

  • Contested deletion This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...
I think it can stay, just tie it to the Adam Carolla books, broadcasting, etc--192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above. It might need to be improved or expanded, but now has enough pop-cultural significance via Carolla's other work to be a valid reference.Hank Stamper (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete rather than merge to Adam Carolla, because he does not appear to own the name "mangria", or his product is not unique. I found several references to a "mangria" cocktail served at restaurants in Boston and Jersey City, and the descriptions are quite different from each other as well as from the description of Carolla's product. I actually found no independent coverage about the Carolla product. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 09:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although Adam Carolla sells his mangria, it seems that it is simply a homemade wine, not significant for a separate article. Aside from the article's current Los Angeles Weekly reference, I also found other minor mentions here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The magnitude arguments referencing non-notability and insufficiency of sources to meet GNG result in a deletion close. MBisanz 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Trishneet Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Article has apparently been created by subject of the article, going by the username which is a single purpose self-promotion account (WP:SPA)
  • The only other significant contributors to this article even 3 weeks after creation are multiple IPs. Promotional content added by these IPs has been reverted by other editors
  • Notability (WP:GNG) is questioned despite apparent references in newspapers since these are online editions limited to a single city. The book apparently written by the subject is not available in online stores.
  • A similar article had earlier been CSD'd

Sesamevoila (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

IP has also removed the AfD template Sesamevoila (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. I've left a message on the original editor's page explaining a bit about the template for AfD, but I also wanted to post this link to YouTube here: It's not the official news site so we can't link to it in the article, but I did want to show that there's been some television coverage. Much of the coverage for Arora seems to be relatively recent, but there's quite a bit of it. I'm not as familiar with sources in India so I'm still abstaining for the moment, but again- there's a lot of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep In-depth coverage in so many secondary sources makes this topic clearly notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 13:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    It might be somewhat in depth, but as mentioned above it's one off. Just because I get a mention in a newspaper once, doesn't particularly make me notable. Even if I claim to be writing a book. (crystal ball perhaps?) I can't find any sources on the book other than a brief mention in the sourced newspapers. As Carrite mentions below, it seems self-promo. I think wait until the book hits the shelves, or there's more coverage. Matthew Thompson 16:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sourcing relates to the novelty of a young hacker writing a new book. The piece is essentially self-promotional in intent. I wish him well and hope he sells lots of copies, invents a killer app, whatever — but this one doesn't clear the GNG bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete self promo, concerns with notability. One-off news paper article doesn't cut it. Wait for the book to be released or more coverage, imo Matthew Thompson 16:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Redtigerxyz and Carrite. Everyone can become an ethical hacker, write a book, or found a startup company. Sure, he may be rather young at his age, but as long as neither his book nor his company becomes notable he isn't notable either by our policies. Nageh (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – because this individual passes WP:BASIC and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Period. Some source examples include , , , . Northamerica1000 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The sources pretty much come down to WP:1E regarding publication of the individual's (upcoming) book. The notability, reliability, and independence of seems questionable, and the fact that a link is given to this non-text-searchable e-paper source has a smell of self-promotion. Let's wait for established notability. Or in the individual's own words: "Even though people might not know about me, but my company would be among the respected companies in the next few years, he says." Let's see. Nageh (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Also going to leave this diff here. In the case this gets deleted, his name should be removed from here. Even if it stays I'm not sure if he's important enough to warrant a listing for births Matthew Thompson 08:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, the list reference is on his official site, leading me to believe the listing (and the entire article) is self promotion. Matthew Thompson 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep – I want to know the reason why you want to Delete dear, this is useful information for all and this guy is so popular so what to do just tell me this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.221.127 (talk • contribs)
Another sock/meatpuppet. Please stop spamming keep, it won't help. Matthew Thompson 14:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"What about 1E?" It's a biography article not a book article. The sources are all biographical, not book reviews.
"AfD is not just about notability" - The article is well sourced and notable, that's all that is needed. It is unfair to me that you would try to delete because of bad behavior of some other user. AfD is purely a content dispute, you're mixing in a behavior dispute with this person(s) as a reason to delete is not fair to me. I am only concerned with the content. So should you. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not looking at the behavior of the user. Trishneet Arora was covered as one off news because he is a young hacker. There is no sourcing of his book, I can't find anything about it. The sources merely says he is working on a book. He doesn't hold world records, even then I've seen AfDs of people who hold world records and still aren't notable. Think about it: I am 18 years old and I say I am going to write a book on hacking. I get coverage in the press, primarily a local newspaper. Does that make me notable? By the way, I'm not mixing in the COI / SPA arguments, read above, you may have confused me with someone else. I never said that, although I did have concerns that the article was created with the intent of self promotion. I just notified the editor that spamming keep votes doesn't affect anything. I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, sorry if you took it that way. :) Matthew Thompson 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
OK re: SPA/COI I wasn't sure what you meant by AfD being about more than notability. Re: 1E, being a hacker is not a 1E (unless he is known for only doing 1 hack/event). Trishneet Arora is a human interest story, there are many human interest stories on Knowledge about people who do certain things and get oft-reported in the news. We don't really care why he is notable, just that he apparently is, based on the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The Express article merely repeats what
Arora claims. It is written by a reporter not a specialist in the field.--Zananiri (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Very few reporters are specialists in the field they are reporting on. It doesn't negate the reliability of the source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Not just the Express article, virtually all of the biographical information cited in the article is based on interviews with the subject, and is not independently verified. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Any biographical article is going to be informed by interviews with the subject, preferably, that's how journalism works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding "Not a Ballot" template for all possible socks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this AfD discussion has been going around in circles for quite some time, I thought I would dig a little deeper and called up the publisher mentioned in the news articles (since the book was not showing up in their online catalogue at ). They first said no such book was being published by them, but when I referenced the news articles, they did some further investigation and reported back that such a book had indeed been under consideration for publication, but had been withdrawn due to "legal problems", usually a euphemism for you-know-what. If this cannot be a consideration in the discussion re. Verifiability, not truth(does that at all apply in AfD discussions?), then please ignore it-this is only my 2nd AfD nomination.
India-related articles such as this are becoming quite the bane because the general Indian reader is not sufficiently clued-in to distinguish the varying degrees of reliability of Knowledge articles, and takes a biographical entry as evidence of a subject's notability and reliability. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting aside, but I'm not sure it tells us much because we really have no idea what the situation is. The article is based on existing sources, even if the book isn't published it doesn't change the existing sources. We are not trying to establish objective notability, just notability by Knowledge standards, which is multiple independent reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen - marginal sources, but a clear majority in favour of deletion. WilyD 07:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This product, as well as its makers, do not meet notability guidelines as set out in Knowledge:CORPDEPTH Mootros (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment In the meantime, the nominator has moved the article to Salty Fingers (trademark). When this discussion is finished, I shall remove the page to Salty Fingers (plant). For one has to distinguish between the article and its heading (taxonomy). Whilst the former focuses on the subject the latter focuses on the reader who seeks information. And the heading must be such that the reader will find the information sought. In fact, I have given it quite some heed when i decided for "Salty Fingers (plant)" rather than "Salty Fingers (vegetable)". However, "trademark" as a part of the title is very much beside what a reader needs. I would appreciate commets. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article should not be deleted because the plant, i.e. the topic in question, is of relevance and it is well-sourced. The references will show that "Salty Fingers" are a ingredient in Haute Cuisine. Apart from that, the nomination by Mootros (talk is merely a retaliation for the fact that I object his vandalism w.r.t Bettina Wulff. He has also requested speedy deletion. A glance at my and his talk page will confirm this. Akolyth (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The first part of your argument is that WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right. The reasoning was rather short - I admit. Now, Salty Fingers are an ingredient in particular used by Chefs in Haute Cuisine restaurants. As has been already mentioned below, trawling through the net you will find ample resources that confirm that Salty Fingers is on the menus of quite a many upmarket (e.g. http://www.kloster-hornbach.de/en/restaurants/gourmet-restaurant/refugium) and Haute Cuisine restaurants. It appears to me that it might be a succulent, halophyte plant that grows in salt marshes or mangroves. If so it might be similar to glasswort, pickleweed and samphire. It would be a Salicornia, thus. However, this is only my personal speculation and thus I didn't mention this in the article. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - the subject is notable and the references are reliable. Nowadays, one can find Salty Fingers on the menus of every other haute cuisine restaurant. Moreover, it is covered both by cooking documentaries and by cooking magazines. The references given are only a starting point. The article shall remain. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since when are blogs reliable? With most sources cited there is no editorial control. Mootros (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources are fine. A Bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you provide proof that "Salty Fingers" is samphire? As regards your comment below I doubt it but please feel free to provide it. And for what concerns this article, it firstly, doesn't mention Salty Fingers, and secondly, it it about a samphire which grows in Europe. However, Salty Fingers grow in tropical Asia and America. So this article can hardly deal with Salty Fingers. In so far, Salty Fingers need an article all by itself. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The Banner made the claim that this is samphire, not me. If I understand you correctly you are saying that the fact that the sources linked by The Banner are not about Salty Fingers means that we should keep this article. That's very strange logic. What we need is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are about this 8-month-old trademark for a plant/ingredient. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Phil, I have read your comment now a few times and I still don't get the point. The key issue which I need your help with is "The Banner". Could you please tell me what you mean by it? However, in case you should refer to the first sentence (is that called a "Banner"?), which contains a reference to sea bean, please note that the reference says "...salicorne such as Samphire..." And this does not mean that "Salty Fingers" are samphire. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help, Phil. As the name "The Banner" was printed in gothic letters I didn't really read it. But for what concerns his remark I think you may misunderstand it a little. He does not say that Salty Fingers is samphire - none of his references say so. But he points out that both (the latter being called 'zeekraal') are being used in The Netherlands. And his examples for zeekraal show that Salicornioideae find culinary use in haute cuisine restaurants. However, should there be proof for your hypothesis I would support to have both articles merged. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I have wondered about this myself, but I can find absolutely nothing which would confirm this. And mind you, it might be either Salicornia or Sarcocornia which brings different varieties into the play. This said, I somehow wonder if the proprietor of the trademark even tend to sell different varities under the same trademark which would be an appripriate work-around in order to cater to seaonsonal availability of one variety or the other. However, even if all that were the case I still see a substantial added-value in a distinct article as it helps the user who wants to find information on Salty Fingers which he or she may know from a restaurant's menu. Accordingly, this article could be biased into the culinary use of the plant. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
If we can't even confirm such basic facts as what plant species (singular or plural) this is then I don't see how we can have a meaningful article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The meaningfulness of an article does not solely depend on a precise botanical classification. This holds in particular for a food-related article. But I agree that the botanical classification would be most helpful. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This issue was already discussed above. Akolyth (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 07:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Relister's comment - There's obviously nothing wrong with having both a botanical article and a culinary article (e.g., beef vs. cow), but what I can't identify from this discussion (nor easily in non-English sources) is whether sourcing really is sufficient for WP:N or not, on which there's some asserted disagreement but no real discussion. WilyD 07:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact, this article is about a plant which is sold under the name "Salty Fingers" which is a trademark. But it is a plant still. And for what concerns your request for sources, please have a look at (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6). These references will show you that "Salty Fingers" are on the menu of nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. There are more references still, but I think that these and the ones in the article shall suffice. Akolyth (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This was already discussed above - the article is about a plant and a trademark which refers to that very plant. Secondly, I would appreciate if you didn't vandalise the article in future. Akolyth (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Be aware that the article is about a plant which finds quite some culinary use. This is why I consider it of substantial added-value for WP:Food and Drink. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

— MountWassen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 09:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, let's take a look at the available sources. From the article (using the reference numbering from the current version:
  • 1 is a blog with an eleven-word sentence about salty fingers. An unreliable source without significant coverage.
  • 2 is a trademark listing. A primary source without significant coverage.
  • 3 is from the trademark holder's web site. Not independent.
  • 4 is an advertisement with no content about salty fingers apart from a picture. Not independent and not significant coverage.
  • 5 mentions salty fingers in a recipe, but says nothing more about them. Not significant coverage.
  • 6 mentions salty fingers in a caption, but the associated text mentions them as "Queller-Tempura". Dictionaries that I have consulted translate "Queller" as "samphire" or "salicornia", so this is referring to a dish of one of these plants in batter, not "a sea bean growing along the coasts of tropical America and Asia". Not about this topic, and not significant coverage anyway.
  • 7 has a passing mention without even a sentence about salty fingers. Not significant coverage.
  • 8 is an advertisement in a blog, complete with "©Koppert Cress" and text directly translated from reference 3. Not reliable and not independent.
  • 9 is the best of a bad bunch, with a few sentences about salty fingers in the preamble to a recipe. I note that it was published before the trade mark for this product was applied for. Borderline significant coverage.
I've spent long enough on this for the moment, but will check though the other sources listed in this discussion later. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Phil, you are continously re-iterating one and only one argument which is Not significant coverage'. And only for sources 3 and 8 your statement is Not independent. Now let's have a look at it. There are nine references given and you really want to say that there is not significant coverage? This needs to be squared with your last sentence in which you concede not to have checked the references that have been provided in the discusssion. Your position does not sound plausible. And if you had a close look at ref 4. you would be able to see that Salty Fingers and samphire are two different plants. I have advised you (and Victor) to do so days ago (see above) and you haven't done so, obviously. To sum up, nine sources (including two dependent sources) are coverage enough for any article at Knowledge. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am saying that sources 1-8 certainly do not constitute sugnificant coverage, and that it would be a stretch to consider source 9 to do so. I haven't yet had time to write a detailed review of the additional sources listed in this article, but will try to get round to it today. I understand that Salty Fingers and samphire are different plants - that is precisely what shows that the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is using the phrase in a different sense, as it descibes the same thing in the text as "samphire tempura" and in the caption as "salty fingers". That source is therefore irrelevant to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
To consider germany's most distinguished newspaper, the Francforter Algemeene Zeitung irrelevant is most imaginative!!! That is tantamount to considering Le Monde irrelevant, which I no Frenchman would ever do. I start to have quite a many doubts as regards "Phil"... A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It is irrelevant when it is writing about a dish of samphire tempura, not the plant described in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Banner" has not made such a claim. This was discussed above. However, you keep bringing up this claim over and over. Now, kindly do not keep revisiting discussions that were closed long before. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read the discussion above, noting who wrote what. This is the edit where The Banner claimed that this was samphire, offering sources that are about samphire, not salty fingers. It is impossible to give this article proper consideration when you continually lie about what I have written. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Now let's look at the additional sources that have been offered in this discussion:
  • This is a mention on a menu, with no content other than these two words.
  • These three sources are about samphire, with no mention of salty fingers.
  • This is a mention in a recipe. Nothing beyong the two words "salty fingers", except that the appearance of samphire as another ingredient confirms that they are not the same.
  • These are more menus that do no more than mention salty fingers.
  • This article from a web site called The Test Kitchen has one sentence about salty fingers: "At the recent SIAL in Montreal, attendees sampled "Salty Fingers", a sea vegetable with crunch!".
  • This article in the Bangkok Post mentions salty fingers in passing without saying anything about them: "The pop-in-the-mouth dairy dainty was followed by a very tasty corn salad (200 baht if ordered a la carte) featuring tandoor-roasted corn kernels served with salty fingers and freeze-dried corn powder as a dry dressing." As with the New Straits Times article cited in the article it predates the trade mark application and doesn't capitalise the name, so it seems to be being used generically rather than for the specific KoppertCress commercial product that was the original subject of this article.
I think I've covered all of the sources that have been cited in either the article or this discussion. If I've missed any then please let me know. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment you have precisely covered (again) the salient point - "Salty Fingers" is a plant which is an ingredient in nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant. Thank you so much. However, you are back where we started from. You truly have a tendency of reiterating yourself. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That is not the salient point. As far as Knowledge notability guidelines go the salient point is whether there has been significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. And, anyway, half a dozen or so is not "nearly every other haute cuisine restaurant", and I am not reiterating myself, as this is the first time I have provided a detailed review of each of the sources offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Time to come off the fence. The test for notability is that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My analysis of the sources offered in the article and in this discussion only finds one independent reliable source with as much as a sentence about salty fingers, this article in the New Straits Times, which has about 150 words in a preamble to a recipe, without giving any concrete information about what salty fingers are. I have been unable to find any other independent reliable sources with significant coverage. This hardly constitutes the significant coverage required, and is only one source. I held off from expressing a firm opinion previously because I had hoped that those editors who claimed that this was notable would respond to my analysis with better sources, because I recognise that there is a strong bias against gastronomy in Knowledge, but the only response has been misrepresentation and belligerence, so I can only conclude that they are unable to find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Watch your tongue! There was never any misrepresentation and belligerence. There is absolutely no justification for your wrongful accusations. But if you ever had a look at yourself you'd find yourself in quite an awkward position, for it was you to use intolerable and inappropriate language like "childish" and "stupid". And now, you even resort to libel. Besides, your analysis is wrong - the references are fine. A bientôt, VictorVautier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Misrepresentation. Misrepresentation. Two editors (including you) accused me of repeating the claim that salty fingers and samphire are the same when I did no such thing, and concentrated on this false accusation rather than the substance of what I wrote. Misreprentation. Misreprentation. You and another editor reopened an old discussion about whether salty fingers are samphire and then you twice accused me of doing so. Misreprentation. An editor accused me of reiterating myself when my previous edits were a one-by-one analysis of the sources, which had not been performed previously in this discussion. Rather than just saying "the references are fine" tell us the specific references where my analysis is wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And, as regards "childish" and "silly" (not "stupid"), I didn't direct those at any person, but at the name "salty fingers", and I stand by that. It's the type of name that a parent would use when trying to get children to eat something that they claim not to like. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why a serious restaurant would want to use such baby-talk in a menu that's written for adults. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject itself is notable and the coverage is sufficient. I do not demand more references than were given in the article. Knowledge's key idea is to provide content rather than to prevent it. And a notable subject like Salty Fingers must be kept. Apparently, this discussion has gone a little out of hand. CeesBakker (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

— CeesBakker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— SirAppleby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— CamillePontalec (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I have initiated a sockpuppet investigation in relation to this discussion at Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I like the name and it's general usage is interesting, the most common being in reference to the sea: The seas salty fingers reaching in to spoil drinking water for people. Norway's North Sea inlet fjords being referred to as salty fingers. Ocean fishermen using their salty fingers to clean fish, tie deft knots in their nets. "The sea breeze tangling its salty fingers through my hair." Salty fingers from eating peanuts from those little bowls set out in bars. Peshawari kebab being long, salty fingers of soft ground beef.. Salty fingers that comes from making ice cream.
    However, I didn't find anything on salty fingers related to the nominated AfD topic. I don't think the underlying plant is specific to KoppertCress (there's no mention of the plant being patented), so there would be no reason to redirect the article to the Knowledge article on the underlying plant. The article doesn't even mention the underlying plant (trade secret?) or its scientific classification, so its hard to tell. The product grows along the coasts of tropical America, but salty fingers is not US trademarked. (search "salty fingers" at TESS). The European trademark covers "Agricultural and horticultural products and grains not included in other classes, including fresh fruits, vegetables and microgreens," so I don't see this topic being limited to one, identified plant sold by Koppert Cress B.V. I only found about eight articles having recipes that merely mention an ingredient "available from koppertcress.com," so it is unlikely koppertcress doesn't meet WP:GNG and there would be no reason to redirect Salty Fingers (plant) to koppertcress.com (a cool name). However, the Dutch vegetable and fruit producing company Koppert Cress appears to meet WP:GNG, so those of you iVoting keep may want to write a Koppert Cress Knowledge article. If we had more information on the scientific classification of the plant that is covered by the trademark, we may be able to find more information. As it stands, I don't see this plant/trademark topic receiving received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:24, 14 October 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 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 speedily deleted by User:Peridon under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 11:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Knowledge is not a dictionary but the article simply implies what is the definition of the word and no other scope were added. Also, non-notable and unsourced Mediran  08:56, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Contesed proposed deletion as an unsourced BLP: flag removed by page author with no explanation. ( Cites in article are not pertinant to biography) Delete as biog. of a non-notable person. TheLongTone (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:58, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources to back the claims in this stub. Non-notable building. reddogsix (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete the article appears to be a directory in which it only says where the building is located. Mediran  07:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Rather than nominating at AfD, the better option would have been to redirect to the existing article, Winlight Tower Apartments. Tagging it as A10 would have also been acceptable as it seems, judging by the existing content, has only housed apartments. The apartments and the building itself are not notable and probably never will. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No assertion of notability. Only reference is to a facebook page. Sperril (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add, this is a contested PROD. Article creator is notified. Sperril (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - No notability here. reddogsix (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is no indication of notability, my English search with Google News and Google Books provided nothing aside from a map so it's possible that, if the apartments are notable, significant sources may be any of the Filipino languages. If this is the case, it would be better to add the article to one of the Filipino Wikipedias. SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:51, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. Well, technically the result is "no consensus" but since the merge has already been done and the only objection was a procedural one I think we can let it lie. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Duplicate of Old Channal Wikishagnik (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Comment – Channal and Old Channal are two distinct villages located in different locations. Check out the satellite maps available from the coordinates listed on the upper right-hand corner of each page. While their names are similar, and they may be related, Channal is entirely geographically separate from Old Channal. Northamerica1000 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Please note that as per Knowledge policy A10 this page would be eligible for a deletion as it merely copies the content of another page. I am sure their would be five different streets and a thousand houses in the neighborhood that have different geographic coordinates but that does not mean that each deserves an article. If you have reasonable references to support the creation of two different articles, then please update the article accordingly. If there is nothing notable about this locality then the article should be deleted. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You are quoting the wrong policy, WP:MAPOUTCOMES is for geographical features like lakes, rivers, monuments etc. and I don't believe the Channal either of those features. The policy for villages etc is WP:NPLACE which requires reliable and verifiable source to establish notability (WP:NOTE) justifying a new article creation. A simple set of coordinates is not enough. The policy also states Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments) and I am sure there is no legally seperate municipality. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate your willingness to listen to alternate views, you are advised not to change articles while in an AfD debate (i.e. merge or whiteout).-14:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:38, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This organization lacks notability to satisfy our guideline for inclusion. WP:GNG Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, reader's choice of criterion #1 or #2e. Nominator's rationale was that the topic was a potential hoax; it is not, and the nominator has retracted that claim (if not, technically, the nomination). Regardless, nothing constructive would result from leaving this open. Non-admin closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No refs, and the external link given does not link anyway... IMdB does not have a page on this film... I think it's probably a hoax... Does it qualify for A1? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

One what basis do you think it is a hoax? How much did you spend looking for references to prove notability? Did you go to google books? --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Erm other places maybe, but finding sources for a movie at Google books?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Which other places did you check before determining it was likely a hoax? That seems to be a rather strong accusation. It is one, given the article creator that you notified and their track record for articles at AfD, I would have questioned. So, before you decided it was a hoax, may I ask where you did look for information? Also, yes, I would assume that for an Italian film from the 1950s, book sources would be amongst the first places I would look. --09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, whats the meaning of one what basis? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Meaning of "on what basis" is: What sources did you look at, what research did you do, what criteria did you have that made you determine this article was a hoax? --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hm. I asked for meaning of one what basis, which is what you typed, not on what basis. Never mind Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, maybe its not a hoax, but now Im questioning its actual notability. Scanning through Google only gives me entries that only have very brief mentions of this Italian film. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
You didn't do a basic book search to determine the film existed. What sources have you looked through to determine the film is not notable? What Italian language newspaper sources did you look through? Which libraries did you look at? Did you look through Google Books? Did you look through Trove? Did you look through opera and Italian film related sources? Why do you think it is not notable now? What research have you done in the period between determining it was a hoax and then changing your mind and deciding it was not notable? --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously a valid entry. --Ipigott (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Me no speak Italian, so if anybody can translate the Italian sources online, and show that there is in depth mention, I'd be happy to withdraw. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Gosh. So many questions. Firstly, I have never said it was a hoax. I just said I thought it probably was. Secondly, do keep it cool. That many questions is certainly not inviting. I believe everybody has their own rights to voice their own opinion. Whats stopping me from saying that its not notable... But okay. It seems that it is notable, not a hoax, so well. I guess i would withdraw my nomination. Case closed. Cool down. Sayonara. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"but finding sources for a movie at Google books?? Anybody who says that clearly shouldn't have rights to nominate articles for deletion!!! Speedy close.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Every one has equal rights. Man. I just said the first thing that came in mind... All of you have the experience, I do not. So if i said or did something stupid just trout me. Besides, I already said that i want to. my nom. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Equal rights yes, but if you didn't know about google books you obviously shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. Withdraw the nom and call it a lesson learned, no problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Five hundred and fucking thirty nine thousand hits for the exact title on a simple Google search, and the nominator speculates that this piece on a 1952 Italian film is "probably a hoax" and ponders A1. Ummm, please don't submit yourself for an RFA for the next year or two... I can also do without the grammar cop smartassery and the pidgin Italian-English. Blech. Speedy keep and trout. Carrite (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey carrite, me no take offenso, but what you say seems so uncivil yo? Is that a personal attacko, eh. Whats wrong with my "pidgin" Italian Englisho? I was born and raised in italio amigos. You have a problem with that, ya stuck up racist? u a big a_ _ _ _ cyber bully yo? Be civil yo! Vulgarities and such... Why. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:46, 8 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

There is no foot note and the 1992 article does not appear appropriate in time-context with Silicon Valley startups. It appears to be entirely made of original research or basically a recap of a page from a text book. article looks like a doorway page to simply lead people to other pages that are filled with promotional material. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article may need improvement, but product marketing is a prolific function in any company of significant size. Surely plenty of sources exist for GNG. We do not delete articles because they are not perfect. Corporate 13:09, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The article was nominated for deletion in a multiple nomination at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse, with the reason "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two agencies that have no notability other than their involvement in the crane collapse (searching them on any search engine only comes up with their websites, yellow pages, or articles related to the accident". It was closed as "redirect", but I'm relisting this as it's unclear from the discussion whether the comments also apply to this article. My opinion is that it should be deleted unless better sources can be found - there's information about two accidents involving the company's cranes, and charges in connection with these - most recently "Crane Owner Is Cleared of All Charges in Fatal Collapse", but this is insufficient material for an article and the the company name is unsuitable as a redirect due to neutrality and only distant connection to the eventual target article. Peter James (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - There appears to be little coverage about the company aside from the incidents. Google News archives results appeared to almost all about the incidents or related. It is not surprising, considering that any news coverage this company would receive would be either incidents or their work. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Coverage seems mostly related to a single incident, but I don't know of a corporate version of BLP1E. Considering that, the multiple sources (even about the same incident) seem to technically pass GNG. --Nouniquenames 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm with Nouniquenames; this really is a case of CORP-1E (or something?). We had something similar with Open Range Communications (see AfD here) which was the subject of an AfD because it was only notable (arguably) for one event - its own bankruptcy. It was kept. But there certainly is plenty of "coverage" if we can get past that question. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 19:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and SwisterTwister's comment and my reason in the first nomination. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If something is notable for only one or two things that briefly happened and then went away, it's best to let it settle into the dusty archives of the internet. That's the policy and I'm sticking to it. Vcessayist (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 04:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete An accident or two do not make for notability.--Charles (talk) 10:09, 10 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Institute for Plasma Research. With the keep votes being somewhat unconvincing, consensus is to merge. -Scottywong| confess _ 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Centre of Plasma Physics - Institute for Plasma Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable research group. Complete lack of in-depth independent coverage. Even in their web homepage at isn't used. Regional unit of Institute for Plasma Research which is itself short of references (the article creator didn't seem keen on a redirect). Almost certainly the founder SB Bujarbarua is notable under WP:PROF (see ), but his three most widely cited papers appear to have been published prior to the establishment of this group. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Stuartyeates Sir, I really appreciate your point.First of all I am new to wikipedia so really I am unaware of all the facts. I just want t clarify some point that you mentioned. Prof. S. Bujarbarua was in Department of Physics, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh 786004, India before he found the institute. So his in his published papers his address is different. Second thing is that our institutional webpage is in under construction that's why I didn't put it there. It will be www.cppipr.res.in. Another thing is that this institute is a centre of IPR(Institute for Plasma Research) but independent institute.In the page of IPR there was not enough information. That's the main reason I tried. Sir I really not well familiar with the webpage things so if you help me to make the article good I shall be thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs) — Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ZappaOMati 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sayanadhikari207. The best thing you could do to make the article safe from deletion is to add some references. A good help page for this is Knowledge:Referencing for beginners. I tried to add some but I dont speak any Indian languages and from a quick search I didnt find good coverage in English. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this article should be deleted. It represents a well known plasma research institute in North-East India. From the references one can see the level of research it conducts. Every should get the chance to know about the institute. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanadhikari207 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
One could also see that there's quite an early group of WP:Primary sources. ZappaOMati 13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 03:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have no problem re its notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    Just because you have no problem with its notability doesn't mean it's notable here. ZappaOMati 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge to Institute for Plasma Research per Vcessayist and IP, although only to the extent that it does not get undue weight in that article. I did a search and could find no coverage in WP:RS; the one newspaper article cited in the article was a list of award winners that did not mention the institute a single time. I allow the possibility that there are reliable Hindi sources, which I don't have the capacity to check, but unless and until we see some evidence that this is verifiable, I think merge is the best call. As a school, this falls under WP:CORPDEPTH ("A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service"), which requires significant coverage in secondary sources. It also appears to fall short of WP:GNG requirements. Those arguing for keep assert that it is well-known institution, but do not cite sources to back up the assertion. --Batard0 (talk) 20:01, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The article was nominated for deletion in a multiple nomination at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse, with the reason "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two agencies that have no notability other than their involvement in the crane collapse (searching them on any search engine only comes up with their websites, yellow pages, or articles related to the accident". It was closed as "redirect", but I'm relisting this as it's unclear from the discussion whether the comments also apply to this article. My opinion is that the article can possibly be rescued as the company is listed on a stock exchange and other sources can be found via Google - either publications within the industry or reports about Malaysian companies - also that a redirect is unsuitable because there is almost no connection between the company and the suggested target article, and because the coverage relating to the accident (in which the company does not appear to have had a significant role) is relatively minor in proportion to the notability of the company. Peter James (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Tepid keep - It qualifies as sufficiently notable for a short article; I don't see any particular reason to link it to the crane collapse though. I bet one could link just about any construction firm anywhere to some kind of accident that garnered a rush of local coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to meet GNG. Also found:
--Nouniquenames 04:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete for my reasons for nominating it in Knowledge:Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse (i.e. not being able to find sufficient evidence of notability other than the collapse). The two links Nouniquenames really do not prove WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article is really about a crane collapse, and there isn't much sourceable independent information other than that. Vcessayist (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The company itself meets GNG, and only one line is about a crane collapse. However, even if the article was written about the crane collapse, the article could always be rewritten to be about the company itself. That alone would not be a valid reason to delete the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete: The company does not meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. The one incident that brought it coverage in the NYT does not get it past WP:GNG. The fact it's publicly listed is also not an indication in itself of notability. Thousands of companies are listed worldwide, and not all of them have received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. The other sources cited in the article and above are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage; where they go beyond routine, they are in industry publications of limited interest and circulation. As CORPDEPTH says, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." --Batard0 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a non-notable high school football stadium; no hits for "Panther Memorial Stadium" on Google Books, News, or News archives, save for a passing mention regarding a renaming of the stadium in a newspaper article. CtP (t • c) 03:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is a notable stadium in chesterfield county, SC, as this is one of the biggest and most recent built stadium in the county and some of the surrounding counties. This stadium is one of the tallest structures in McBee, SC. As I was looking on the internet for information reference to this stadium I was unable to find any. But I was able to find a link to where this stadium is noted on Google maps. Panther Stadium Google Maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knickking1 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am unable to find any online information referencing to the stadium. I will call to operator of the stadium, McBee High School, on Monday to get document proof of the stadium. And when I get it I will upload it to Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knickknig1 (talk • contribs)
  • Google Maps already proves that the stadium exists. That's not what we're looking for. We're looking for significant coverage of the stadium in independent, reliable sources. Anything from the stadium's operator doesn't count as independent. Also, you only get to formally say "keep" once, so I've removed it the second time. In a similar fashion, my nomination already counts as one of these "votes", so you shouldn't add "delete" in bold to my comments. CtP (t • c) 22:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I found an article on The McBee Voice website (newspaper for the McBee area), were it talks about the Sandhills Classic band Innovational. If you read the article it mentions the name, location and capacity of the Panther Memorial Stadium The McBee Voice. Also, sorry for the misunderstanding, i am new at Knowledge. Knick talk 10:39, 8 October 2012 (EST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As usual arguments with a basis in Knowledge policy were given greater weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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

There is no indication of notability for this website. I searched and could find no reliable sources. While there are links listed on talk, they do not meet WP:RS. As it does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:WEB, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Knowledge is not a reliable source. In order to be kept, the notability must be established through references in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Vote withdrawal - sorry, at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept, me thinks a Knowledge expert is required who knows the keep rules. I see the problem being that Rosettacode is only peer reviewed and it is a purely electronic entity. Hence Rosettacode in not in newsprint, and would have few paper scholarly citations.
Question: There are 40+ "wikilinks" to http://rosettacode.org. Are these links & contributions (under the same "delete-me/AfD" reasoning) set to be removed too? {re: WP:BOLD (with civility, please!): I'm thinking, if so then it would be polite to add an appropriate "delete-me" note to the both the wikilinks and other wikipedia links/URL's also. e.g these other pages: Google: site:wikipedia with rosettacode => About 261 results (0.24 seconds)}. NevilleDNZ (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not those links are removed has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Here, we are simply trying to decide whether or not the subject is notable enough for its own Knowledge article, which is a different standard than we use for determining what can be linked/cited. It's certainly plausible that a number of those links should be removed, but that would be a separate discussion to be held in each of those pages. While I would personally remove all of them (and I would recommend doing so even if the article is not deleted), I'm not going to take the effort to go track them all down. There's millions of improper links on Knowledge, so it's just a matter of fixing the ones we see as we see them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Your generalised delete all links is a tad harsh and this indirect AfD lacks a certain amount of transparency as the numerous affected pages are not engaged nor given any notice. Similary: If you want the page removed, then it would be reasonable to also take the time to follow through and notify each page then fix the wikilinks that will be broken ... c.f. WP:BOLD (with civility, please!). If you don't have the time I can help you post advance notice on the appropriate pages. NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
No, and you cannot do so either--that would violate WP:CANVAS. We never do that for AfDs (backtrack all "what links here" and notify them). That's simply beyond the scope of an AfD notification. And I think we had some miscommunication--I'm saying that if there are any external links to the actual Rosetta Code website, those should be removed. Internal links can be kept--they'll just go red; then others may remove them later (leaving them in the text, but as regular black text), or the can stay red and if the site ever does become notable in the future, they would automatically relink if the article were recreated. At worst, the closing admin could do the deletion such that it automtatically removed all of the wikilinks; however, if it did so, the text would remain (black text), just no wikilink. Thus, no harm comes to those articles in any way.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
re: I checked out WP:CANVAS and it reads: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." ... I suggest you change your "interpretation" of WP:CANVAS (and maybe even WP:GNG or WP:WEB) in favour of the better idea of simply "notifying other editors". In this case the watch list of editors is well defined, and better then drawing from our own lists of editors.
As I said at the beginning "at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept", and it seems that in order to keep an entirely reasonable page I am be being barraged but a mountain of WP:RULESANDREGS to research, when all I see that is needed is simple common sense.
BTW: I did a simple google scholarly search and found RossettaCode.org specifically mentioned in:
  • "Lambda calculus with types" H Barendregt, W Dekkers, R Statman - Handbook of logic in computer …, - cs.ru.nl Springer Publishing
  • "Touching factor: software development on tablets - M Hesenius, C Orozco Medina, D Herzberg - Software Composition, 2012 - Springer"
  • "The Implementation of Zoning for Winner Determination in Combinatorial Spectrum Auction - A Purbasari, A Zulianto - Informatics and Computational …, 2011 - "
  • "CyberMate∼ Artificial Intelligent business help desk assistant with instance messaging services - NT Weerawarna, H Haththella… - … (ICIIS), 2011 6th …, 2011 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
  • "Software Mutational Robustness: Bridging The Gap Between Mutation Testing and Evolutionary Biology - E Schulte, ZP Fry, E Fast, S Forrest… - arXiv preprint arXiv: …, 2012 - "
  • "101companies: a community project on software technologies and software languages - JM Favre, R Lämmel, T Schmorleiz… - Objects, Models, …, 2012 - Springer"
  • "Using Domain Specific Language for modeling and simulation: ScalaTion as a case study - JA Miller, J Han, M Hybinette - Simulation Conference (WSC), …, 2010 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
  • "Advances in Sensors, Signals, Visualization, Imaging and Simulation - MICHAL MUSILEK, STEPAN HUBALOVSKY - University of Hradec Kralove - CZECH REPUBLIC"
  • "On the algorithmic nature of the world - H Zenil, JP Delahaye - arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.3554, 2009 - arxiv.org"
  • "Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference - Using Domain Specific Languages for Modeling and Simulation: ScalaTion as a Case Study - John A. Miller, Jun Han, Maria Hybinette, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia"
  • "Linking Documentation and Source Code in a Software Chrestomathy - JM Favre, R Lämmel, M Leinberger, T Schmorleiz… - University of Koblrenz".
  • "Prediksi Pergerakan Kurva Harga Saham dengan Metode Simple Moving Average Menggunakan C++ dan Qt Creator - A Rahmadhani, MM Mandela, T Paul… - … dan Simposium Fisika, 2012 - prosiding.papsi.org"
  • "Using XQuery for problem solving - P Kilpeläinen - Software: Practice and Experience, 2011 - Wiley Online Library"
  • etc… &c.…
You also claim both WP:GNG or WP:WEB in yet you appear not to have done the basic due diligence with a simple google scholarly search. It would have been a travesty if your AfD had of succeeded. I believe your intentions are probably well meaning, and you certainly have experience as your "User page" states: "Admin statistics Pages deleted 901", if it were not for this I would simply call the original AfD a glaring case of vandalism.
Is there a safe guard that can be implemented on AfD to make sure this does not happen again, eg a compulsory google scholarly search. Certainly listing a page at AfD for a week, where it is only viewed by "passer bys" and "resident AfD-ers", the unceremoniously (and silently) dumping the page defies common sense. Maybe the one week time frame should be adapted and extended based on the actual activity of the related pages. (Not all editors live 24×7 on wikipedia)
Bottom line is that a resource of AfD feed back and discussion would be simply the editors of the wikipedia pages that reference the topic.
In summary: Fundermentally, to (IMHO) specifically and silently excluding these watch list editors is misguided and discounts overall wikipedia transparency.
NevilleDNZ (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to WP:ANI, since you have been clearly warned that we do not do this. You may place a notice on a relevant WikiProject, or you may notify people who've edited Rosetta Code before. Someone who is watching a page that happens to link to Rosetta Code (which may, in fact, link to dozens or hundreds of other Wikipages) has no particular interet in this page. And if you want major changes to AfD, go to WT:AFD and propose them there--don't try to use that here as some sort of smokescreen to cover up the non-notability of this website.
As for your Google scholar search, that means nothing. Does even one of those discuss the site in detail? Or are they merely referencing where a specific piece of code came from? WP:GNG and WP:WEB require detailed discussion, not just a reference. So, until evidence is provided that the site is discussed in detail, I still hold that the article should be deleted. As Dominus states below, if you can actually show the coverage required in policy, I'll not only change my !vote, I'll withdraw the nomination and apologize. But I don't see it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep site, maybe the the site is not referenced that often. I see this often with community sites, there are less references because the main content/work/reference is on the site itself. There are several thousand users registered on RC and in the last month more than one hundred people contributed/worked/changed something. This has to be considered as well. Peter.kofler (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Peter.kofler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No, no in fact it doesn't. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Knowledge's notability guidelines. Please try to provide arguments that are valid per WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding Template:Not a ballot at the top?
The hardened AfD contributors may well know the ropes. But the editors defensively tagged as "Knowledge:Single-purpose account" possibly do not. { FYI: I very much doubt that the current editors tagged WPA are "editing for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy." Suggest you consider: (From WP:SPA)
  • New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Knowledge standards.
  • Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. }
At this point, given that under WP:CANVAS (and with the comment "We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to WP:ANI..." ) I have nothing to add. {I hope I will have a moment this week to track some "Knowledge Notable" reviews solely about RC, it would be nice to be permitted a RC expert point me in the right direction.}
NevilleDNZ (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added the template at the top per your request.
  • Delete - The article says that Mike Mol came up with solutions to various programming problems in many different programming languages in 2007. However, Intel's Andrew Grove was developing Rosetta Code software "that takes incompatible systems and translates them into each other, so that one system can automatically read the other" in July 2005. See New York Times July 30, 2005 Were Mol's and Grove's efforts towards different products? They seem to be along the same lines with a same name. Grove again talks about his Rosetta Code with Charlie Rose in October 2005: "Rose: You have called this, this idea of being able to have Access to a Patient's Records, Data, on the spot at the time you need it as kind of the Rosseta Stone of Medical Care. I called the Techniques that are necessary to Glue different sources of Data together the translation Technology, the Rosetta Code, not Stone. Rose: Rosetta Code, I stand corrected." Apple had a Rosetta Code translator in 2006. and UW professor David Baker had his own Rosseta Code in 2006. The only thing I didn't find was information on the Rosetta Code program for which this AfD was requested. I also looked for source information on rosettacode.org, but did not find any. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have (pretty much) mirrored Uzma Gamal searches and can conform his findings are accurate. About the only thing I can add is (from google scholarly searches) Rosetta_Code is specifically "referred to" in 30+ or so publications, but WP:GNG requires and states: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail'. Rosetta_Code is "actually cited" in some of these searches, but not addressed "directly in detail", it would seem - as per WP:GNG - million such references/citations and a similar number of citations on WP itself could not save the article. Consequently - unless there is some other WP: criteria I have missed - it looks like the RC Article is destined to be deleted. (@Uzma Gamal: Thanᚷ for taking the time to search/review, nice work). NevilleDNZ (talk) 05:07, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Parker (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing yet notable about this film. It's months away from release, and all that's out about the film is a poster and a 30 second sneak peak. Too soon for an article. Zac  02:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep if a sneak peek, and a poster has been released, then it's more or less a confirmed thing. Plus sufficient sourcability, this passes WP:GNG and thus passes WP:NFF, Parker. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep There's an official trailer out, with a vague release date mentioned, so it's a objectively existing thing, starring notable actors. Secondary source coverage of the trailer is out there at least. Three weeks ago I would have suggested Delete for this AfD, but now it's passed a notability milestone or two. -Markeer 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Filming has started (and completed), and there is already substantial press coverage, so it meets WP:NFF. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. A strict reading of WP:CRYSTAL might argue against this, but it's virtually impossible that a movie with a released trailer and with filming complete won't meet inclusion standards once the release date rolls around. Even if it were shelved, that would attract third-party coverage. These sorts of "virtually inevitable" articles are on something of a gray line, but in my opinion, we don't benefit from a strictly bureaucratic delete-and-recreate process -- as opposed to the truly crystal-gazing articles for films and albums which haven't even started filming, and often lack even bare essentials like cast and title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination. It appears as if the film is indeed notable enough for inclusion. I didn't realize that film notability was as loosey goosey as it is. It appears as if WP:NFF prevails over WP:CRYSTAL in this situation. Zac  20:11, 8 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The entire article consists of a collection of quotes, from small local newspapers and "Horoscope Magazine". One such quote was "Renowned teacher and lecturer...Beckman teaches the scientific application of gems to balance harmony in life" (violates WP:NPOV, indicates the dubious nature of the sourcing) IRWolfie- (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable at this time and, as mentioned, the article promotes him. I was unable to retrieve the first dead URL link but I retrieved the second link, but it appears that it is minor. Considering that gemology is a science, I searched with Google Scholar but was unsuccessful. Google Books found several mentions, this provides a vague description of a book's text, one minor mention here (I should note that the block of text is promotional and the above pages suggest it is part of a directory) and another minor mention here. Considering that astrology isn't a true science, he wouldn't pass Knowledge:Notability (academics) as an astrologist. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Closed as a unanimous keep in May 2008. I went back and took a look at that version to see if the article has deteriorated since. I'm not seeing what people were so sure about. Sourcing showing is trivial and the piece strikes me as promotional in intent. He seems to be a You Tube New Age Mysticism personality. I'm not seeing multiple independently published sources dealing substantially with him, however. As a such, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails all notability requirements. Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising in the way of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources used all fail WP:RS by a wide mile. Also appears to be promotional in nature. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know how this page lasted so long. Sharing a guru with the Beatles, no doubt along with thousands of other devotees, is not worth mentioning and certainly not notable. Kooky2 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Beyond Geoffrey Dean mentioning him in a paper, there aren't many reliable sources about this person. At the moment it's a hagiography. No sign of notability or any significance outside of a small collection of astrologers IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. "
Also, WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just passing mentions in various places. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Many of us, probably, consider Astrology a dubious field. However it is not fringe in the sense of a single madcap theorist with a few dedicated followers starting a new cult; it has been around for many centuries, with an extensive literature. Clearly it is not scientific, but that's another matter altogether. Within that certainly-notable tradition, Addey was certainly a leading light. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but it's well established that WP:FRINGE criteria apply to Astrology and suptopics, like any pseudoscience. It's not just "single madcap theorist" articles that are subject to it. I suggest reading it thoroughly to see where it applies. If he was a leading light there should be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You can make the basis of your keep that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to astrology topics, but the closing admin gives weight to arguments based on their adherence to policy and guidelines (and it still wouldn't meet WP:GNG). The content you have added, based on sources only reliable for personal opinion, and which treats Astrology theories as a serious discipline violates neutrality as it doesn't reflect the mainstream opinion (which can't be found because the topic isn't notable). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I share the mainstream opinion here. Addey as a Patron of a major society in that field is a notable figure. I have added two sources from within the field that are quite critical of Addey, ironically enough in one case because he was too rational and scientific, so they certainly aren't from his side, but they clearly represent their field in viewing him as a significant author.Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Fringe criticisms don't show notability. This isn't about who is on "his side". Astrology is a fringe belief, it's not a large reputable field of study, but pseudoscience. So the individuals have to be shown to be notable outside of the small collection of individuals. The article is about a practitioner of a fringe theory, and so it is subject to WP:FRINGE. Notability is with respect to the world at large, not within a small clique. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the nominator of this and many other paranormal Articles for Deletion (AfDs) a key argument seems to hang on FRINGE#Notability. "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." In a biographical article, this argument is specious. It is very clear that the rule applies to fringe theories and organizations and not to individuals. And IRWolfie makes this very point above when he/she writes "Fringe criticisms don't show notability." which contradicts FRINGE#Notability "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view ... establish the notability of the theory". So fringe criticisms don't show notability of the person, but they do when it is theory. You can't revert the rule back to theory when it suits the argument. Which one is it people or theory/organisations?
So unless IRWolfie can find a way of interpreting FRINGE#Notability so it applies to people, it should be ignored and we should focus on the person in relation to WP:Notability and not fringe theory. On that basis, I agreed with the deletion of two nominations of this editor's paranormal AfDs. I was not involved in the editor's proposed deletion of Roy Firebrace co-founder of the Astrological Association with John Addey (where this specious argument was also used) - which resulted in no consensus. I consider that there is sufficient notability here and with another open AfD: Deborah Houlding. Kooky2 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - My objection is to the tone of the piece, but that's an editing matter. A recognized expert in his field, I echo Chiswick Chap's rationale above. Additionally, I note that the subject is dead, so the blatant promotionalism that we often seen with such pieces is not a contributing cause for aggressive interpretation of GNG rules here, in my opinion. We're not here to save the world from astrology, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Aggressive? Asking to show WP:GNG isn't being aggressive. Just because it's pseudoscience doesn't mean it gets special allowance to not pass WP:GNG, and Knowledge:FRINGE#Notability. Pseudoscience "experts" should be recognized by outside sourcing if they truly are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly resembling significant and substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and the sources used do not establish any notability outside of the fringe community. The significance of the subject within the fringe community cannot be assessed because no reliable independent sources exist on which to base such an assessment. The fringe sources used are all unreliable to the extreme, and are passing, trivial or tangential anyway. No evidence is available to indicate that he was a notable fringe proponent except from sources linked directly to him. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The sources appear to be independent and reliable. However, I believe that more editing time should be given to this page given that secondary sources for someone who died in 1982 tend to be found in books and journals rather than on the web. Kooky2 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is too long and should be cut down considerably. However, John Addey appears to have been one of the more significant astrologers of the last century. Founding the Astrological Association of Great Britain in 1958 - an organisation which according to reliable sources on the Knowledge page still exists and has 1,600 members and has four regular journals, alone should be enough to qualify as notable and significant. Kooky2 (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED (except for obvious cases like Royalty). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED applies to membership of a group or being a relative of a celebrity or merely an association with an established notable body - i.e. undeserved or unearned notability by association. The examples make it clear that this cannot be adapted to apply to the founder of an organisation for which the founder should be credited. For example, someone who is a Moonie or a brother of Sun Myung Moon is not necessarily notable, but Sun Myung Moon is notable as the founder of the Unification Church. Kooky2 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
If you think being the founder of a notable group makes someone notable (and doesn't fall afoul of NOTINHERITED) then show a guideline which says as much. The point of these examples is that notability has to be demonstrated on the persons own merits. If you think his notability stems from founding the organization, then the logical move is for a merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The point has been made with an example and since you claim NOTINHERITED it is up to you to to show the appropriate guideline. It would help me to understand your point if you could provide examples where the founder of a notable group is not notable. The organisation would have to be in a popular field, appear to be flourishing after at least 50 years and where there are over a thousand paying members. I think a merger would be a mistake. This article stands well alone as John Addey appears to considerably more than the founder of a notable organisation. Kooky2 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate guideline is WP:N. If you wish to deviate from WP:GNG the burden is on you to show that there is a relevant guideline. You can deny this is the case if you wish, but the closer will know. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
So we agree WP:NOTABLITY is the appropriate guideline and we can discard WP:NOTINHERITED as irrelevant in this case. Kooky2 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article could be tightened up, but we shouldn't confuse articles which uncritically advocate fringe claims from those which report their practitioners and claims from a neutral perspective. In this article much is made of Addey's Neoplatonism and I don't think there is a 'mainstream' position on this. I also note that he was critical of conventional western astrology which makes him of interest. As far as notability is concerned, there are thousands of examples on WP of people who are notable within a particular community - are we proposing to delete them all? It seems clear that Addey was notable within his community, even if a few more citations would be helpful. Google searches often throw up little or nothing for people who died before the web, so they are not necessarily a reliable indicator of notability. Far more reliable would be library searches.Paul Quigley (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
To draw a parallel, would you think someone who is only published in creationism related publications but not in regular mainstream sources was notable? Why would you not expect significant coverage in the mainstream sources if they are really notable? The people you are comparing with are part of the mainstream; the sources they are covered in are regular reliable sources; significant coverage in RS exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I predicted this. The logical positivists, represented here by IRWolfie and Dominus Vobisdu, are intent on airbrushing history in their radical denial of all modern astrological organizations and all modern astrological leaders. Whereas they characterize astrology as paranormal, it is normal to most people and is used comfortably in everyday conversation to describe personality, and understood. They describe astrology as Fringe, but it is global in its use and influence. It is very far from fringe. Science needs to study it, but scientists are afraid of these self-styled vigilantes who will try to destroy their career paths. Editors need to get a spine and stand up to political censorship.
I've improved the Addey article with solid references in a new section named Cited Research, which should make it conspicuous to anyone concerned with the discussed issues. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The references don't support your text. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The text contains numerous quotes taken directly from the references. As I am letting the references speak for themselves, nothing could be more plain or accurate. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
e.g, in the first paragraph "Addey's astrological research methods have been cited in mainstream publications." There should be a source that mentions that to at least justify why you have made an entire section to being cited. "The authors describe their own independent study of time twins that used Addey's evaluation criteria", the source doesn't say that as far as I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your second point. I was too generous with Dean and Kelly. They used Addey's authority only for criteria on the timing between births and I have corrected this. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I might add that the authors who cite Addey (I.W. Kelly, G.A. Dean, and D.H. Saklofske) have no problem with Addey's research and even express regret that "sadly, this intriguing work was cut short by Addey's untimely death." These words suggest that this research of a statistical effect was indeed promising and puts Addey's research within the demarcation of science according to the criteria stated by Thagard. Because this is a such a well exposed source (in its second edition), used in university courses, this citation is especially worthy of note. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Being cited by a mainstream source or mentioned doesn't make someone notable. By that criteria every scientist who wrote a paper someone cited would be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue if you want to move the article to . It simply does not meet the requirements to be on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I want to be open about my astrological interest and state that I followed the link to this discussion from that given on the Knowledge:WikiProject Astrology talk page. I hope that having an astrological interest does not prejudice me from being able to contribute to discussions that concern astrology, even if I only do this from time to time. Please assume good faith since those who are knowledgable in the subject are able to offer an informed opinion on whether John Addey was notable for his standing in his subject. I concur with the view expressed by others, that John Addey was an especially prominent astrologer in his time and was certainly influential in his field. His entry is exactly the kind of material that makes Knowledge valuable for specialist researchers. Logical 1 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I always contribute to Wiki under my own name (the use of untraceable user names is at best a mixed benefit, and the sooner WP contributors move towards the normal practice of encyclopedia entries being signed with actual names the better, in my opinion) - so my view will no doubt be read with my close relation to the subject in mind. It seems to me that the possible deletion has a rich irony which would not be lost on my father, a dedicated follower of Socrates and his ways. I am not part of the astrological community and must leave it to them to argue the case that astrology is not a pseudoscience. However I doubt if there is a figure in modern astrology who has done more to encourage astrologers to use the methods of modern science - to move beyond their former reliance upon mere anecdote and to test their claims empirically. His major contribution to astrological understanding, the theory of harmonics, was presented not only with a series of theoretical explanations, but also with an extensive set of supporting data - producing in the seventies what he had been advocating since the fifties. This itself has over the years meant that some in the astrological community have been critical of John Addey - "adulterating the study of astrology with dirty modern science." Despite or because of this, all his major writings continue in print, thirty years after his death. As for citations beyond the astrological world, I do know that he was one of three astrologers featured in a lengthy Sunday Times or Observer colour supplement article in the seventies: anyone with access to their electronic archives should be able to provide these.--Tim-Addey09 (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since this is ultimately about sourcing rather than whether astrology is bunk, I note apparent coverage of the subject in Gavin Kent McClung's article, "A SALUTE TO OUR HERITAGE: What Makes A True Astrologer?" Dell Horoscope, June 2000, pp. 66-77, an excerpt of which appears HERE. For the record: I think Astrology is bunk. That said, this is a recognized expert in the field about whom an encyclopedic biography would be beneficial. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source for historical details. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We can see that is your entranched opinion, but the overiding principle for reliable sourcing is that it is always judged according to common sense and the context of what it is being used for. Knowledge does not suffer from independent magazine articles being used to qualify basic biographical information as much as it suffers from editors using its facilities to try to police the world from subjects that are not to their own taste. There are more substantial sources of information for these kinds of details anyway. What worries me is your absolute refusal to acknowledge any source, without admitting the need to apply editorial judgement to what it is being used for. Logical 1 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue with using astrology sources for the opinions of astrologers where due weight has been shown, but not for sourcing related to historical details. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If an astrological source lists his books or reports the details of when he began a notable astrological association, then the astrologial source is an acceptable source of reference unless a better source is found. It is only important that we report on details that are published, non-controversial and verifiable. We can assume reliability for such matters in independent sources unless there is a reason not to. Due weight is not an issue in such matters. If such a source is being used to contradict mainstream knowledge or champion a fringe theory or position, then and only then do the policies for WP:Fringe apply. Logical 1 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've looked at the sources recently provided, and have to conclude that they do not represent substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The fact that a real-world scholar used Addey's "research" as an example of fringe nonsense adds very little to the notability of Addey himself. Also, per WP:FRINGE, notability within a fringe community does not confer notability unless it is discussed by independent real-world sources, none of which are to be found for this person. In-universe sources of the type Carrite mentions are notoriously unreliable and promotional, and using them to establish notability is OR and synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if you are really 'concluding' or simply maintaining your position no matter what. Others have pointed out that the policy you've linked to relates to the presentation of fringe theories, not biographies. Persons who work outside of mainstream academia are able to gain notability or notoriety whether mainstream academia gives them substantial attention or not. In what way do you consider the source Carrite quoted to be unreliable - do you think it is unreliable in detailing the books that he authored, or lying by stating that he founded the Astrological Association? Such details are not to be mistrusted as unreliable until/unless there is reason to suspect the source of presenting false information of this kind. If we were to present Addey's beliefs as valid or legitimate, then there would be a problem with due weight. Reporting biographical information from published sources that are independent of the subject does not constitute OR, even if the authors or publications that biographical details are drawn from do share the same alternative viewpoint that our subject held. Logical 1 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Claiming he had a rational and scientific approach isn't an exceptional claim? Astrology journals etc don't have a good reputation for fact checking, go see the RSN archives for specific examples. This topic is under WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is ...". Yes, much of this article is sourced to references that just aren't reliable for what they claim. The sourcing is sub-par. The sources just don't exist to put his views into the mainstream context. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said, comments that cause concern over due weight are a different matter. They can easily be rectified under the normal editorial process without deleting the page. The issue here is only whether your proposal to delete is justified according to your argument that there is no evidence of notability or significance available to us. Logical 1 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a further measure of Addey's influence on his subject, this comment is from Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976 by Geoffrey A. Dean and Arthur Mather (Analogic, 1981, ISBN: 9780949912008) p.325: Under 'Harmonics' -
"Further advances have been due almost entirely to the twenty years of painstaking research by British astrologer John Addey". Logical 1 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Recall that Dean is a former astrologer. This quote is a passing mention. I suggest you recheck what is required for significant coverage; i.e a significant amount of coverage. Where was that published? I can find no book with that ISBN but from google scholar it appears to have been published by an astrology group.IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not the case. Check this Google books link where you can see it is listed (towards the end of the page) as a critical work by Patrick Grim in his Philosophy of Science and the Occult. Differing publication details are given there. References to Addey are frequent: p.137, 138, 141, 142,147,148, 151, 323, 325, 326,327,328, 329, 330, 331 - and 10 different publications by Addey are cited. In any case I am not suggesting that the subject's notability hinges on this source, but that it is further evidence of the criteria required to satisfy biographies of authors and professional creatives (as per WP:author criteria 1), which I would say is already amply fulfilled Logical 1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to approach this with fresh eyes and an open mind. To the extent that it's possible I will not focus on astrology, a subject on which I have no opinion, but will instead look mechanically at whether it meets the WP:GNG criteria. Before I do, I am unfortunately forced to say that astrology is classified as pseudoscience under WP:FRINGE/PS, which states: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Having said that, I find nothing in this guideline that restricts notability as it relates to people who espouse pseudoscience; it only treats "fringe theories" themselves, not their practitioners. Thus after this detour, I think we can return to the task at hand. First, I will evaluate the existing references in the article. Second I will try to find reliable sources in the news, books, and anywhere else. Only then will I voice an opinion on whether it meets the GNG criteria.
    • Ref 1 is a dead link.
    • Ref 2 is an astrological journal. An entire issue of the journal is cited, so it's difficult to tell specifically where the supporting information is, but that's not a dealbreaker. Is it a reliable source? Per WP:RS, reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have insufficient evidence to judge whether Astrological Journal has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I suspect that it is accurate and is reliable within the context of astrology, and yet astrology itself is considered a pseudoscience under the guidelines. How, in that context, could a pseudoscientific journal have a reputation for accuracy? I'll leave this one unanswered for now; my general take is that this source should be taken into account in judgment of notability, but is probably far from sufficient on its own to establish notability.
    • Ref 3 is a book where the subject is discussed in some depth. It is published by Paraview, not a self-published source. The publisher deals mainly in astrology, palmistry, etc. My only reservation here is that the publisher specializes in pseudoscientific work, and thus one could argue that its output establishes notability within pseudoscientific circles, but not generally. I can find little support for this view in the guidelines, however, which seem to treat books independent of the subject as reliable if the publisher has a reputation for accuracy, etc. If the guidelines consider astrology a pseudoscience, it seems one could question the reliability of this book along the same lines as with Ref 2.
    • Ref 4 is another astrological journal. See Ref 2.
    • Ref 5 is a primary source and not reliable for the purposes of notability.
    • Ref 6 is a book published by a regular publishing house that doesn't focus just on pseudoscience. This seems ok to me.
    • Ref 7 is a review on a website. Not reliable for the purposes of notability.
    • Ref 8 is another astrological journal. See Ref 2.
    • Ref 9 is a peer-reviewed journal. This also seems ok to me.
    • Ref 10 is a book that discusses astrology in the cited sections. This also seems ok. It's published by a university press, which qualifies as reliable under the guidelines.

Other sources: I found a brief mention in a Guardian obit that seems to place him among the more rational of astrologers. You can't see the whole article, but he's used as an authority on astrology in this London Observer article. Overall, I think it's a borderline case, and the guidelines need to be clearer about how to judge practitioners of fringe theories versus the theories themselves. But I believe based on the above that the article meets the WP:GNG criteria. I think it should be edited to say clearly that astrology is pseudoscience, per the fringe guidelines cited above, and should be made more neutral and encyclopedic. It should come at the subject from more of a mainstream angle. Hence Keep. --Batard0 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You focused on WP:FRINGE/PS, but haven't looked at Knowledge:FRINGE#Notability. I suggest looking at the coverage in the sources themselves and not just whether they are reliable or not, and whether the sources actually verify the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 18 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I could only find passing mentions, but no significant coverage anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you verified that he even had the CBE? Just because the article says so doesn't mean he does. There is one source in the article and it has dubious reliability. We can't have articles without reliable sources no matter how notability you believe them to be. I'm having trouble even verifying that the book source even exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, he was certainly a brigadier. I'll admit I am having difficulty verifying his CBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
is R.C.W.G Firebrace. Are you sure this is the same person? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the Roy C. W. G. Firebrace described in our article as a colonel in 1937 and a brigadier in 1946 is not the R. C. W. G. Firebrace promoted to brigadier in 1943? How many R. C. W. G. Firebraces do you think there were of this rank in the British army at this time? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
What I am wondering is if the astrologer Roy C. Firebrace, is Roy C. W. G. Firebrace or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Malcolm Gaskill book cited in the article, published by Fourth Estate, links the brigadier with séances and the vomiting of ectoplasm, so I don't think that there's much doubt that the astrologer is the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing resembling substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The fringe sources used for the astrology claims all fail WP:RS. Brigadier or not, the subject appears to have had a rather unremarkable and uneventful military career that receives only scant tangential mention in reliable sources. I don't think that the CBE is sufficient in itself absent substantial coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
SOLDIER is an essay. And as I mentioned above, I'm not even sure the source mentioned exists, let alone it being reliable. Also does not meet Knowledge:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk)
WP:ONLYESSAY - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I will say that I don't think being a Brigadier confers notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
And I do. And so do many others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
So, you're admittedly making a judgement against a source without even having seen it? Strange. Well, not so much, considering you are also misusing WP:FRINGE in an attempt to exclude topics it was not intended to exclude. My interpretation differs. Obviously. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Elaborate on how my interpretation of the above text of WP:FRINGE does not apply. If the person is truly notable, sources outside the small circle (and yes it is small) of practising astrologers would mention him. He doesn't meet WP:BASIC anyway: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Yes, I think it is dubious that it is reliable. I didn't say "it's unreliable"; The purported press it is published by doesn't exist except for publishing this very book. A publisher that only makes one book sounds a lot like someone self publishing. The source you added doesn't add to WP:BASIC. The in-universe source "The astrology book: the encyclopedia of heavenly influences" only gives a passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have a source, produce it. Otherwise, your argument basically boils down to "maybe, sometime, somewhere, someone might find adequate sourcing". If you're talking about the source currently in the article, though, it does not meet WP:RS by a longshot, and does nothing to establish notability outside of the fringe community, and not even within the fringe community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd already added one by the time you replied. Now there are half-a-dozen. Seriously, you two don't look too hard, do you? Cheers. Yworo (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Which of the sources gives significant coverage? Identify it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Yworo, you did a good job demonstrating how unnotable this individual is. Even after scraping together your small pile of tangential, trivial and routine mentions, you've still come up with a guy with an singularly uneventful and unremarkable military career, who was somehow vaguely "involved" in the arrest of a famous individual, and whose military experiences as a pencil-pushing, glad-handing brigadier, desk-bound during the height of the war, are vaguely "mentioned" (probably only in passing) in a couple of books on other topics.
None of this equates to significant and substantial coverage. The fact that so little can be found on this person, despite his military rank, amply demonstrates that he was largely ignored and overlooked (which, admittedly, may have been intentional on his or his superiors' part, considering his work). He MAY have actually played an important and noteworthy role during the war, but based on the sources you provided, his fifteen minutes of fame were when he served as usher and interpreter at a meeting between Churchill and Molotov, and got his picture taken with Churchill to boot. Sounds kind of sad, actually. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
That's your opinion. He seems rather interesting to me. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Necrothesp that Brigadier Firebrace's military status meets the criteria. I don't believe that the "multiple Google searches" have been at all thorough. I found Secrets With Stalin: How the Allies Traded Intelligence, 1941-1945 (Modern War Studies) by Bradley F. Smith published by University Press of Kansas (1996). According to the index, there are 12 pages with references to Firebrace including criticism by Churchill. This is a significant, independent and reliable source. Before putting pages up for deletion, editors should check more carefully. Given how many astrology pages have been put up for deletion by editor: IRWolfie and supported by Dominus Vobisdu, I have to question whether it is Firebrace's pivotal role in astrology that falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is an Encyclopedia and it must carry notable individuals and subjects whether we like them or not. Minerva20 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I will ignore your ad hominem on me. Firstly, as pointed out, meeting an essay criteria is meaningless. The essay does not represent the consensus of wikipedians on notability. If you look at the book you will see it's a W.O Firebrace, not a R.C Firebrace. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No, if you look at the book you will see that the index entry says "Firebrace, Brigadier R. C.". Here's the initial mention on page 21 and subsequent mentions simply refer to him as "Firebrace", as is normal when context has been established. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not significant coverage required for WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The prima facie evidence of the index, with entries for 12 separate pages, would suggest that the coverage is significant, but, by your last comment, I assume that you have access to the full text of the book and have determined that this reasonable presumption is incorrect, as otherwise it would be impossible for you to know that it is not significant coverage. Or is your approach to any evidence that doesn't support your prejudices the same as that of the quacks and pseudoscientists that you claim to be fighting against? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Calm yourself. I see what is covered by the snippets and previews through google books and see the coverage . Here you can see the mentions of W.O Firebrace. You are saying the book has significant coverage, the burden is on your to demonstrate that, but it appears you haven't read it. When I did the search, I could not find the significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again you are not basing your comment on facts and the evidence. I have not made an unqualified statement that the coverage is significant, because I haven't read the book, but only that the prima facie evidence points that way. You made the unqualified statement that the coverage is not significant, without revealing that you hadn't actually read it. There's no way that snippets can tell you that it's not significant, per the definition of "snippet". Playing fast and loose with evidence in this way is precisely what the supporters of fruitloopery do. Please don't start emulating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was given with the unqualified statement that the coverage in the source is significant. Let me repeat the text: "This is a significant, independent and reliable source". Then it followed it with an admonishment of me and another editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not say that. You really must start getting your facts straight. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry ad hominem was not intended. I was trying to understand why you and Dominus Vobisdu seem (in my view) to be so unreasonably determined to quibble about the notability of someone who is clearly notable on at least four counts. Firebrace was a Brigadier, who had a military career - significant enough to be criticised by Churchill, he was an author, he founded a significant organisation the Astrological Association of Great Britain and was President of the College of Psychic Studies (founded 1884). I believe WO is military terminology like Warrant Officer. There is no reference to any WO Firebrace in the index - only R.C.Firebrace and according to the author on 12 pages in what is indisputably a significant, reliable and independent source. Minerva20 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Significant refers to the extent of coverage of Firebrace, it is not in reference to a general quality of the source itself. I'm quibbling because WP:GNG has not been met. You can not show a source where the coverage of Firebrace is of a significant amount. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 15 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Manic Street Preachers discography. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes (Manic Street Preachers EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

searched and cannot establish this as notable/deserving of an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Manic Street Preachers discography. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

searched and cannot establish this as notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several notable publications Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 9 October 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Manic Street Preachers discography. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

searched and cannot establish this as Knowledge-notable/deserving of an article - e.g. hasn't been covered by several notable publications Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 9 October 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑