Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 30

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 23 (Mon) September 22 (Sun) September 21 (Sat) More...

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

< 29 March	31 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunil Kumar Verma

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

delete-the person is not notable, citation given do not authenticate this person to be considered for publication on wikipedia

delete-citation #6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference

Delete- most of information given is so general,almost all the university professors/Scientist of North America and developed countries across the globe have way better bio-data, however, only a few are on Knowledge (XXG), I can't comprehend the reason of this article to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: This nomination was malformed and was not properly listed

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. h-index of 8 nowhere enough for a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
KEEP. *DO NOT Delete. My reasons are as follows:

1. How Many People are Research Ambassador of DAAD? Only 9 in Entire India. See this link: http://www.daaddelhi.org/en/23633/index.html. Dr Verma is one of them.

2. In the 40 yrs of the History of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology only 4 people (from this institute) got the prestigious CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research technology Award. I name all of them: Dr Lalji Singh, now Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, Jayaraman Gowrishankar, now the Director of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Dr LS Shashidhara and the 4rth one is Dr Sunil Kumar Verma.

3. The Universal primer Technology that Dr Verma discovered in 2001 (Please see the filing date of US patent 7141364) is being used in entire world with the name DNA barcoding. It was his bad luck that the entire credit for this discovery is given to Paul D. N. Hebert who published this technology with a new name DNA barcoding in the year 2003 (two years later than the work of Dr Verma). Facts are facts and the links given here are clear proof of this. No offense! If any respected reader of wiki has knowledge and understanding of molecular biology, please go through the original work of Dr Verma and the first ever paper of Paul D. N. Hebert. Dr Verma named the this technology as 'Universal primer Technology' however, Dr Paul D. N. Hebert renamed it as 'DNA barcoding'. The term 'Molecular Signature' given by Dr Verma in 2001 for the species-specific signatures of DNA generated by mitochondrial Universal Primers (US patent 7141364) was just renamed as DNA barcode by this Canadian group in 2003. Can anyone let the world know the difference between these two works? In fact, there is no difference and the fact is that it was indeed pioneered by none other than Dr Verma. No need to emphasize that the discovery of 'Universal primer Technology of Dr Verma (later renamed as DNA barcoding' by others) was a discovery not less than the original discovery of DNA Fingerprinting by Sir Alec Jeffreys. With this fact, Dr Verma indeed should be recognized as the father of so called 'DNA barcoding' and this fact should be mentioned on his wikipedia page as well as on DNA barcoding page on wiki.

4. I strongly believe that the respected editors of wikipedia should not only keep the page of Dr Verma but also unbiasedly highlight the above facts on his wiki page so that entire world could know 'who indeed discovered the DNA barcoding' two yrs before the scientist who is popularly known to be the father of this technology. Wiki is not for east or west, it is just for the facts!! Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. Citation counts are too low for #C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Reply to above Comment: approx 140 citations for the work (Please see total citations for first three papers on this link of Google Scholars . His work was suppressed due to ignorance about the facts highlighted above. Once the world know the facts through this wiki discussion/wiki pages, there will be thousands of citations of Dr Verma's original work. This is not the first case where the scientific discoveries have been suppressed knowing or Unknowingly. Lets be scientific and please read the documented proofs before making a comment.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Delete~~ how about the other 8 people of DAAD, none of them is on wikipedia, others even have better bio-data.

Most of the professors and research staff of hundreds of Universities across world full-fill the above criteria, only a few are on Knowledge (XXG). The awards given above in support of this person are not itself so big and renowned to be considered for Knowledge (XXG) The article substantially lacks citation which are supporting the information given for this person, for example citation no. 6 directs to his personal page; http://sunil.verma.org.in/ , author just copied the same content from this website, not a credible reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 05:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have struck your "delete". You are the deletion nominator and you are not permitted to !vote twice. Spinning Spark 08:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

very little published work,just 15 papers, here is the link http://www.ccmb.res.in/publications.php?grpid=34, the papers are not even published in high impact factor journals i.e.>5.00. Person can't be considered living legend to be published on wikipedia with such a CV. .The work he is doing is just his job, type of employment, nothing extraordinary. In India, Principal scientist have same pay scale as associate professor

. Regarding principal scientist, it is just a position in research institute and not somebody full in-charge of that research facility. Other senior positions in his institute are several Sr. Principal Scientists,Outstanding Scientists, Chief scientists, Director etc. .Person is not even a group leader in his institute http://www.ccmb.res.in/research_groups.php , he is just a junior scale researcher and a project leader (see other 30 project leaders in his institute). This all is against WP:PROF passing criteria. If he is such a big name scientist why is not being considered even in his work place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC) .SK VERMA can't get the credit of Dr Paul Herbert' work. His name is no where in DNA barcoding, the one he is trying to claim as his own pioneer work.

Reply to Inder Neal's Comments:

1. Citation No 6 is very well directing to the official website of DAAD AND NOT the personal website of S K Verma.

2. The awards that Dr S K Verma has been conferred are the National Awards of India given by highest Scientific Bodies such as National Research Development Corporation (NRDC), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) etc.

3. Someone notable not being on wiki can not be a criteria for deleting article for others.

4. Simply STATING "S K Verma CAN NOT GET THE credit of Dr Paul Herbert' work. His name is no where in DNA barcoding" is not a reasonable and healthy argument by Inder Neal (even the spelling of Dr Hebert's name is not correct!)! I have given the clear links to the published documents, patents on USPTO sites, reference to their priority dates etc, which confirm that the technology of DNA Barcoding for species identification using conserved mitochondrial primers was originally discovered by S. K. Verma and Lalji Singh in 2001 with the name 'Universal Primer Technology', two years before than Paul Hebert. I have contacted Dr S K Verma and informed him about this discussion on wiki. Very soon I shall get from him important technical, scientific and popular documents/links to those documents that will further demonstrate that the 'Universal Primer Technology' discovered by him is the one that is indeed renamed as 'DNA Barcoding' by other groups. Please wait...

5. Dr Verma has published only 15 papers, this is true, but some of these papers are extremely novel paper. In one of his research (see link here), Dr Verma and team rediscovered the Pygmy Hog after 100 years and proposed that the original name 'Porcula salvania' for the Pygmy hog should be resurrected! This was accepted by world-wide community and the Scientific Name of Pygmy Hog is now Porcula salvania instead of Sus salvanius (see New NCBI taxonomy here). This resurrection heightened the need for conservation of this rare animal.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC) — 124.123.170.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The above walls of text defending the notability of this person actually constitute quite an articulate case for the opposite. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain how it is an 'opposite' case????? Please read the links to the facts first before commenting. Why the scientific community can not correct itself if something has gone wrong??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.170.30 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

For example when you mention that his works have been cited 140 times. You may think that supports keeping the article, but, in fact, it is very far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. As for the rest, WP is not for righting perceived wrongs. If there are reliable sources that report that Verma was cheated out of a discovery, we can report on that. However, we cannot don some original research to show here that this is the case. Sad as it is, if science hasn't corrected itself, we cannot do so either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Though, I never wanted to say that 140 citations are a great number of citations! Sorry, if it appeared as so. I just wanted to make a point that the number of citations could have been thousands or even more if proper credit was given to the discovery of Verma.

I will get you the links which will clarify more on this truth.

Can I upload on wiki an original document (original DNA testing report from a US based company) which employed the technology of Verma (as cited in the report itself under the methodology section) and which later became a major breakthrough in entire USA to fight food frauds (See links here - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4 and many other links that are available on google search.

If permitted, I can upload this document on wikipedia and it will prove beyond doubt that technology that was used to un-cover the famous US fish fraud (popularly known as Florida Fish Scandal) was of Verma (as cited in the original report itself), but the credit for this was later given to Hebert's barcoding technology! I have got this original DNA testing report from Dr Verma, who in-turn obtained it from the link available on the article written by one of the famous and most prestigious press reporters from USA. Alternatively, I can upload it on google docs/or wikileaks so that you could download it and see. Please let me know.

I appreciate though that you in principle agree that the science could have gone wrong in this case, and there is a scope for correction and that if I provide you with such authentic links, these can be reported in Wiki!

I'm afraid that won't work, because such a document would be a primary source. As I tried to explain above, you cannot use WP to prove your point. You need to have an independent reliable source that clearly states this and then and only then can you use that on WP. --Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Evangelical-Reformed Church of the Canton Basel-Stadt

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

No evidence or claim of notability, the article relies on primary sources I could not find independent, relibale sources on the subject. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 23:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Editors interested in this discussion may be interested in the article Evangelical-Reformed Church of the Canton of Lucerne, created on 30 March 2014. I have no opinion on deletion. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep - State church of Basle is claim of notability. To find the GNG sources you will have to go to German language sources, probably, but if it has existed for 400 years the information will be out there somewhere. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

Comment if its out there, I can't find it. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Does appear to be pretty notable as a state church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Question: Wouldn't the "state church" be the Swiss Reformed Church? The article says this is a "member of the Schweizener Evangelische Kirchenbund" (Swiss Evangelical Church-group), but I don't know if these are the same thing. Again according to this article, it is the "Reformed denomination in the city of Basel", which sounds like it may be a regional section of a "state church". Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  - (Don't know why I didn't think to check this earlier...) The interwiki link from Swiss Reformed Church is de:Schweizer Reformierte Kirchen; the interwiki from de:Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchenbund is Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches. That article includes Basel-Stadt in a long (26 items) list of members. Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep but consider moving. I rather doubt that this church, as it exists today, is notable enough for a standalone article. However, historically, it (or rather its predecessor before the canton of Basle and its church were each split in two in 1833) was one of the more important early Reformed Protestant churches - not as influential as those of Zurich or Geneva, but not far short either. I can find at least one entire book (Burnett, Amy Nelson (2006). Teaching the Reformation : Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529-1629. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198041658.) on the church's first century, and I suspect that there is more on nearly the same scale to be found. We might well do better with an article on the predecessor church, talking about the current one in a shortish "Later history" or "Legacy" section - but even so, we would probably want that article to include almost all the information currently in this article, even though restructured and greatly expanded with information about the church's most important period. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jason Fernandez

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

Jason Fernandez looks like a vanity article to me. It's about a guy who owns some restaurants in Tampa, Florida, and none of them are important enough to have an articles, either. It was even worse before I took out a whole set of links to the restaurants' websites. It has been deleted twice already, it has to go to Article for Deletion now because somebody added some references, which are just restaurant reviews in the local newspaper. The guy exists, but it looks like he or somebody close to him is trying to use Knowledge (XXG) for free advertising. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.138.207 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I finished the nom (nom nom!). ₆ansh₆ 20:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Most sources are local food reviews. Only one article seems to mention him in depth. This person has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", per WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak delete. We are not anti-business, we are just not Yellow Pages or Who's'Who. The article seems well-referenced, primarily to a number of articles in Tampa Bay Times. That said, there's only three articled there that really are about him, and it provides no more content than for a few sentences. Most of the article seems hardly relevant - we don't really need a short sentence about a restaurant, in its own section, ref'ed to which doesn't even mention the subject's name. We don't have a specialized Knowledge (XXG):Notability (entrepreneurs)/Knowledge (XXG):Notability (businesspeople), so it's up to WP:BASIC//WP:ANYBIO, and I don't think he cuts it. Three or so articles in a single regional newspaper seem still to close to a vanity coverage than anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep the nominator gets it exactly wrong. Two of the three restaurants are in fact notable enough to have their own articles (Bernini and Carne), but I chose to combine the restaurants into one article about the resterateur who runs them. This is in fact a trend in the restaurant industry, many leading chefs are establishing a group of individual restaurants rather than a chain of similar restaurants. And far from being "some restaurants" these are very significant locations in historic buildings at the center of Ybor City and Tampa revival. One is in a National Landmark and was just restored in the last few years. And another has been at the heart of the culinary resurgence in Ybor and a trendsetter and remains one of the most established and noted resaurants in the area. They have been covered very substantially. And, as noted above, there are in fact articles entirely about the restaureteur and his management of these establishments. So it makes the most sense to have an article covering these subjects in a sensible way although breaking it up into multiple articles is certainly a possiblity going forward. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete If there was more info and references showing more than just local notability at best, then...maybe. I would say delete for now. The buildings that they are in having their own notability is irrelevant. The restaurants can't inherit notability just because they lease space there. The Bernini and Green Iguana restaurants have been around awhile and possibly could be fleshed out more on their own (I don't know if they warrant their own articles or not), but Carne is not really that notable, I don't think, as you claim above. It hasn't even been open two years yet. I just don't see anything more for Jason Fernandez to warrant having his own article. Thank you. -- Shrikesong (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an entire article about him, articles discussing him and his restaurants (noting for example "It's official. Jason Fernandez has an empire. Bernini, Green Iguana and Hot Willy's in Ybor City were joined April 10 by Carne", and extensive coverage of the restaurants that are part of his restaurant group. The Tampa Bay Times is a major REGIONAL paper. It is not a local paper. This article covers him AND his restaurants including the one you acknowledge is in fact notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Sorry Bali88 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Being an autobiography is not a valid reason for deleiton. No arguements have been brought suggesting he does not pass WP:PROF. kelapstick 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Antal Jákli

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

Autobiography; may fail notability Eye snore (pc) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Autobiography, and no indication of notability ChromaNebula (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. With a GS h-index of 31 is a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
Comment -- Full professors are often notable, and I suspect this guy is notable. Someone tagged this article as possibly having been edited by somoene with a conflict of interest. This is not grounds for deletion. There are rules for how and when principles can edit their own articles. If this really happened here, but he is nevertheless notable, there are ways to remediate that. The first step would have been to explain the COI rules to the person suspect of being in a conflict of interest. I don't see any sign this happened here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete per norms. Reads like a resume without indication of notability.Darkesthoursoflife († • ©) 06:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your opinion of his performance in WP:Prof#C1? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. The citation counts are high enough to convince me that he's a noteworthy physicist. The sourcing of the article is poor, but it mostly covers the basic facts of his education and career, for which primary sources are adequate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Natalie Billing

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

Strange article about an installation artist, largely cited to adverts for her events. I can't find any news coverage about her or her events whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Seems to suffer a lot of link-rot and very poor sourcing, but a Google search found: spinningdaily ima.org arthivesupdate (blog) They are not great sources but they are independent. The sources I found may not meet WP:RS though. Beakermeep 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete, I came up with the same as User:Beakermeep; some independent sourcing that would confirm this person exists and does exhibitions, but nothing reliable or substantial enough to build a proper biography out of. Lankiveil 13:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
'Delete I also came up with the same as above, and found one book written about her, and another related to an exhibition. However, nothing that makes me cheer that she passes WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Please keep in mind that dead links can often be recovered. Links to archived copies of the dead links I was able to find in the article include , , and . I am not expressing an opinion on notability. --j⚛e decker 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

List of people with initials J. G.

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

This isn't (IMO) an encyclopedic subject or a useful list. This is the only "List of people with initials ..." page in enwp. If anyone is commonly known by the initials "JG" then they can be added to the dab page (e.g. like there are several entries for people at JFK (disambiguation)). DexDor (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep on condition that Jerzy (talk · contribs) also completes the handful of remaining articles: List of people with initials A. A.,<unhelpful repetition redacted>, List of people with initials Z. Y., and finally last but not least List of people with initials Z. Z.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice that Jerzy included a PROD tag ("Such a list is of no encyclopedic use...") when s/he created the page? DexDor (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be grounds for a G7 speedy delete if it wasn't three years ago. Spinning Spark 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obvious delete, although Barney the barney barney's suggestion is a fine compromise. :) 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete, but if Barney's suggestion is accepted, don't forget List of people with non-letter initials and List of people with longer initials (possibly with all the permutations?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I can't see what possible use this is to the project, though it could be turned into a disambiguation page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete as a random list, per WP:LIST. I don't see the point of the list. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - lolwut? This exists? Although I suppose it's probably as random as list of songs about bicycles, so there's that. I just can't see anyone really using this list. Bali88 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete, seems a bit arbitrary. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete A totally arbitrary list. If we keep this, we will need the other 100+ possible initial combinations too. This is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fork PHP

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

Author objected to PROD. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE - I can't find any reliable sources about this framework aside from its own website, and it is written heavily like an advertisement. The author also appears to be the creator of the framework. ProtossPylon 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete per ProtossPylon's reasoning. Also the 'official' website is not even functional. None of the links work and there is no download link, just social media links. I am not sure there is a framework. This may just be spam. I think this meets WP:CSD even. Beakermeep 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, This is Eshant, Contributor of Fork PHP Framework. I have an explanation for the deletion of forkPHP Article. Actually when the article was created, our website was under construction. That's why its links were not functioning. Now its all working(except the tutorials links as it is still in development phase) You can find the information about this Framework at links : On Mircosoft Codeplex : https://forkphp.codeplex.com/ On gitHub : https://github.com/ForkPHP/latest/

I request you to undo delete action for this article.

Regards, Eshant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshantsahu (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Zina Saunders

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

Tagged (by me) for notability questions since July 2013. The subject is clearly an active writer for a number of major periodicals and most of this article is about this work, cited to the periodical articles themselves. I've searched for significant independent coverage about Saunders but can find very little - a short article and very long quote in a Queens NY magazine, and a listing article in a Connecticut publication. Not sure this is sufficient to convince me she passes WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The subject matter seems notable enough. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep I had looked at her article at the launch of WikiProject Women Artists and decided it was a keeper, just needing some improvement source wise. I consider her work with major publishers to be the equivalent of a major exhibition at a museum. She's also designed numerous cards for Magic: The Gathering , and a few different Playbill covers, which combined with her publishing history, is rather notable. Reliable secondary sources for the sake of it.. The book she authored about Mars Attacks was reviewed by NPR. SarahStierch (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep the references noted by SarahStierch evidence notability under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker 02:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

North Valley Bancorp

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

nonnotable financial company. in NASDAQ not NYSE. On of a group created by class, recreated after move to user space, despite advice that it was not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Unable to establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Cindy(talk) 10:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Some possible sources not currently used in the WP article: zacks.com benzinga.com found via Marketwatch. I dont know if these change the outcome or not. I am not sure they are good sources. I figured it could not hurt to add them here though. Also isnt the Reuters profile a good source? Reuters (currently used in the article). If none of these sources are reliable enough I think the rest of the coverage is incidental and thus probably fails WP:ORG Beakermeep 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep - enough RS cites to be WP:GNG. Hoovers cites are RS per WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep, agree with analysis by VMS Mosaic, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

KRDR Co Op Jr College

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

no evidence of existence or notability provided after a while tagged Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Certainly appears to exist and is clearly at least a secondary school, which are kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep Mainstream educational institutions at least at the level of high school are generally considered notable enough for inclusion. This passes that basic criteria. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep per precedent noted by Necrothesp and Dennis Brown. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bengi Semerci

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

More sources are needed as well as this person might be important, but does he need a page on here? Wgolf (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Tiny citations. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).
Delete We don't have articles for every professor with a website. Not exactly someone who warrants a page. Wgolf (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC, nothing much in Turkish either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Spider Arm Reactor

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

Lacks notability and references markmassie (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Only source is a blog. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

The result was keep. needs cleanup, but appears notable. AfD is not cleanup... Tawker (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Géant Casino

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

Subject might be notable, however no sources are cited and I had a lot of trouble finding anything that would pass RS in a Google search. The article has been tagged for no references for two years. Despite numerous edits no one seems interested in adding sources. The wording and overall tone of the article seems highly promotional. As it stands the article fails V and NPOV. The former might be fixable if someone knows French and can check out French language sources. The latter I suspect is probably not without more trouble than it's worth. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep The continued lack of references is a problem and is clearly a task for someone to undertake, but this is one of the major supermarket retails chains of France. A Google search might not be much good unless done on google.fr. The company's own website is a good starting point. The most recent references I can find are to a a strike by 50 staff at the Béziers branch last month and France Info reporting this month that the group is the second cheapest chain in France. Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, agree with analysis done by Emeraude (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Deadest Rapper Alive

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

Promotional article on almost unknown book--WorldCat shows only one library in the US that holds it. The author is equally non-notable-- Worldcat shows only other book, also in one library only.

Almost all the reviews are from blogs, except for one blog-style column in a local magazine, cited here to make it look like two different titles. (there were some dead links I could not see, but they did not sound promising) DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I think a weak case could be made for this self-published book. It attracted attention from regional sources (Philadelphia magazine and the Philadelphia Inquirer), but I'm really not seeing much beyond that. Those sources indicate that it caused a controversy online, but the controversy seems limited in scope to bloggers and local fans. The article itself doesn't make much effort to show non-local coverage, and the blogger reviews are a bit damning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fever therapy

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

Created by the author User:Jimburnside, fails WP:GNG & WP:BOOK. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

- - Just in case this has been missed on the talk page, the author posted this: Thanks for the heads up. I am about to launch my self published book FEVER THERAPY with a world wide professional PR campaign that will include many invitations to review. As you may be aware self publishing represents over 70% of the overall publishing market and about 99% of new publications. I have several very favourable reviews (one from a professor of History). I apologise for not reading your submission criteria - I was preoccupied with IT issues as an amateur publicist. I am by no means an amateur writer however. I hope you will have an opportunity to read my stuff sometime and you will see the highest quality. As a writer I am here to stay. I will be careful to read all your objective criteria and do whatever is necessary to meet them.I am a strong advocate of Knowledge (XXG). I look for your articles first by default. Of the hundreds I have accessed over the years I have only ever seen one that was of poor and subjective quality. When I have published my next three novels, which I hope to do in the next couple of months I will turn my attention to rectifying it. Best wishes, Jim.90.216.163.181 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Another self-published book with no reviews listed and no coverage in reliable sources. I guess you can say that it's not a promotional article, at least. Author probably didn't realize that we have inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable self published book lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet notability. Bali88 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Presently, the book appears not to conform to Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). Until it does, this name should be a redirect to Pyrotherapy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

MICE industry in Thailand

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

Problem 1:

This article cites a wide variety of sources, but most of them support side points. It appears that only one source is about the MICE industry in Thailand itself. Unfortunately, one source is not enough.

Anyway, I don't think Global Traveler is an acceptable source for proving the notability of a subject. Please use mainstream sources. Condé Nast Traveler would probably qualify.

Please delete per WP:GNG.

Problem 2:

The previous set of articles about the MICE industry in Thailand was created by convicted sockpuppeteer User:Mr RD, who appears to me to be a paid spammer. That set of articles was deleted. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Khon Kaen MICE Tourism.

I cannot view deleted pages, but User:Amatulic told me this new article is better-sourced and non-promotional.

I respectfully argue that even this new article is promotional. It appears to me that the article's goal is to promote Thailand as a destination for meetings, conferences, and exhibitions. If you want me to enumerate specific problem points, please email me privately.

Please delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

And now, a note for the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau.

Dear TCEB:

Hiring Wikipedians to secretly edit for you is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. I know that you really would like there to be a Knowledge (XXG) article about the MICE industry in Thailand. But not everything you want is possible. Perhaps your time and money would be better spent on other things than Knowledge (XXG).

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge anything worth merging to Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau and delete the title. It's a significant government agency but there's no need to also have an article about their activities. The vast majority of the content relates to the activities of the TCEB and some of it simply repeats information already in that article anyway. We also have Tourism in Thailand into which some of the content might go if giving an account of 0.58% of Thailand's GDP is a worthwhile exercise. Stalwart111 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. The only thing wrong with this article now is too many numbers. It's a neutral treatment of a notable topic. Unforgettableid, you have a bee in your bonnet. andy (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC) - changed to Delete - see below andy (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think that's the only thing wrong with the article. We're talking about a small part of a broader industry that simply doesn't warrant coverage in its own right, especially given it is actually covered elsewhere. We don't, for example, have a specific article covering the Resort industry in Thailand. We do, bizarrely, have Spa in Thailand which I think I will promptly nominate for deletion. We don't need articles for every minor government agency, think-tank and sub-office and then also articles about their work. The other option would be to retain this and merge the TCEB into it. It's likely only a notable organisation within Thailand itself and the agency could be comprehensively covered in an article about the industry and efforts to develop it. Either way, having effectively the same content in two places seems pointless. Stalwart111 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, MICE appears to fail GNG with a very trivial coverage outside press releases and unreliable/primary sources. It could deserve a little mention in Tourism in Thailand or more properly in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau per Stalwart111's suggestion, surely not a separate article. Given the blatant paid editing and the continuous recreations-after-deletions I would not oppose to salt the article. Note aside, it is not clear how the sections about Bangkok and Khon Kaen are specifically related to MICE. Cavarrone 19:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - I changed my mind on the basis of Stalwart111's comments. This is the remainder of a whole lot of spammy articles and I thought I might have salvaged something, but now I look at it again I don't see it has any merit. andy (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was Redirect to Junji Ito. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hellstar Remina

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

Unsourced and consisting entirely of plot. No evidence of notability and tagged since May 2011 Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect - Cause I already did it. This is a procedural waste of time. So I'm ignoring all rules and just doing it because waiting another week is silly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Undone per WP:FAIT 12.249.243.118 (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment, I am in favor of adding citations for expansion. The article is poorly written and has no citations. I found multiple sources with a google search. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in manga and am not sure what constitutes a reliable source. I believe and expert in the field is need to make this determination. Valoem 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Junji Ito and protect if needed. If you want to create the article with more sources down the line this being a redirect will protect the edit history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TJ Bhanu

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. Bisswajit 16:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG irretrievably. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Smart Destinations

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

Clear and unambiguous advertising, created by a serial sockpuppeteer. Nothing to indicate that this company meets Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm endeavoring to make the page more neutral. Djadvance (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't really the issue - notability is. We need significant evidence from third-party sources that the company meets WP:Notability (organizations). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Smart Destinations has been covered in major news sources, which I will now add refs to. From my reading of the notability guidelines, they seem to fit the requirements. Djadvance (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete: A superficial glance at the reference list would indeed give the impression that there are sources which satisfy the GNG and WP:CORP. Actually reviewing the sources, however, and each and every one of them fails of being a reliable, independent, third-party source which discusses the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. The Boston Globe ref, for instance, is a bunch of bulletpoints for six different events, apps and products, all obviously parroted from press releases. The ABC Local ref consists of product touts and quotes from a company rep, something the GNG explicitly debars as a measure of notability. The blogposts -- and they are blogposts -- from the NY Times and NBC websites are blatant product touts and read like press releases, something common to many of the refs. Ravenswing 22:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I found some source from brief Google news search: Consumer Electronics, Virtual Strategy Magazine, Universia Noticias, and Jewish Journal. Trivial coverage in Street Insider and PR News Wire (appears to be press releases). There may be more sources at least two of these source are reliable and the company has been covered by multiple sources, internationally. Valoem 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Err ... the first two of those links are explicitly press releases (and are in fact the same press release), with a link to the full press release at the bottom of each. The second two mention the subject in a single sentence only, something explicitly debarred as supporting notability by WP:GNG. Ravenswing 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure if they were, but my main questions was the Jewish Journal source, more citations are definitely needed, it does not seem to pass GNG as of now. Valoem 22:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal source is nothing but a passing mention, in a self-described blog that gives a strong impression (to me at least) of being intentionally promotional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Connecticut Peace Officers Association

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

Article is about a very short-lived internet hoax that was quickly debunked. Article is a self-published Knowledge (XXG) article about the hoax, and was created by the hoaxer theirself, a single-purpose editor with an obvious conflict of interest. Article was first created by the hoaxer with the essential claims of the hoax (that the Connecticut Peace Officers Association was real, and involved in a gun law debate in a certain way). When that was quickly discovered on-wiki and the article was PRODDED (Proposed for a simple deletion), the hoaxer came back, removed the PROD, and then edited the article to make it a descriptive documentary about his/her hoax. Mvialt (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete: If some new references do not show otherwise, I am for deletion. --BiH (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, as nom. Nothing has changed. The article was initially written as if the CPOA really existed, as part of the original hoax. It was quickly debunked. Then, the hoaxer switched to trying to get a Knowledge (XXG) article to document his hoax in perpeptuity. And, as noted, it fails general notability criteria for an article in Knowledge (XXG). Mvialt (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sancy Suraj

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

Fails WP:BIO. Holding a world record is not sufficient to be included and I can find no coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, as above & does not seem to be recognised by the Guinness bookTheLongTone (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is mentioned briefly here: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.es/news/2013/9/breaking-bad-cooks-up-record-breaking-formula-for-guinness-world-records-2014-edition-51000/ but that doesn't change much. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete I was only able to also dig up mere mentions and press releases. Guinness books doesn't necessarily make you notable! SarahStierch (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

John Bohan

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

Not notable. It appears the most notable thing he's done was being convicted for fraud. Greedo 8 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete No in depth coverage in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep His conviction for fraud is highly relevant for anyone researching his background. I suspect the request to delete was made by him or someone in his camp. 76.94.216.84 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — 76.94.216.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment, Please try to keep all conversation civil, and stay on the topic of his notability. I am highly offended by your baseless accusations of being "in his camp." Furthermore, just because someone was convicted of a crime it does not mean they deserve a wikipedia article. Greedo 8 02:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK boys, relax both of you. Greedo8, there is not anything to be offended about. IP, do not accuse someone without any proof of it though I think you did it in good faith I do not recommend it. . --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

weak keep - apparently this "simple fraud" has been covered a lot in media. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

delete as per WP:BLP1E. Take the fraud away and he's barely noticed. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete I agree with User:LibStar! SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was Delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

XLN Telecom

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

Lack of sources seem article seem to written in a form of advertisement. Lack of sources to back the company up, and seem to mention the company in more of self promotion advertisement. simon161388 ( talk ) 12:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I _Online 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment This seems to be a WP:Pointy nomination given the authors own article has been nominated for deletion, and the author of Blue Penguins has already been mentioned at WPANI. Martin451 13:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I _Online 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep -- Despite being in UK, this is not a company that I am aware of hearing. The article has far too much (self?)-promotion, amking it a horrible article. Nevertheless, if accurate, the company is almost certainly notable, so that deletion should not be an option. even so, the article needs a lot of pruning and tidying up to make a decent article of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete This article is self promotion, outdated, more in the lines of commerical spam 209.172.25.93 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete I failed to find multiple reliable secondary sources. EverythingI found was either a mere mention, or industry websites (i.e. "Serviceproviders.com" or something) that were non-notable and interested in promoting products. Until people are covering and confirming their claims, delete away. SarahStierch (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Neeraj Shrivastava

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

Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak delete - There's no significant coverage of him online in English, just mentions on various film credits for his composition of a song for Impatient Vivek. The film is notable, but that doesn't confer notability on everyone who's worked on it, and being one of several composers who wrote songs for a low-notability film can't really be considered a substantial contribution per WP:MUSICBIO (#10) or WP:CREATIVE (#3). He's won no awards for his work yet, and I can't find any reviews of the film in WP:RS that mention the song. Seems that he's still in the beginnings of his career, so in a few years and more substantial coverage of his work, this might be worth looking at again. Ruby Murray 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete might just be WP:TOOSOON for this composer/musician. Appears to fail WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Anil Aickara

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

Non-notable politician JK (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Week keep Now i'm not an expert about Indian politicians however Looking at the sources it looks like this man might meet criteria 2. of WP:NPOL.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The sources in the article are unconvincing. There are six sources provided; the first one is subject's personal website, the second is a dead link, the third also seems to be a personal website, the fourth is again a dead link, the fifth one is subject's blog, and the last is yet another dead link. His purported notability mainly rests on his campaign for Mullaperiyar Dam issue through facebook. But, I could not find any mainstream media in Malayalam or English discussing his role in the Mullaperiyar Dam dispute. Salih (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Salih convinced me, and thanks for doing the extra Malayalam legwork. SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment I was able to recover links to two of the three deadlinks at and respectively. The latter I can't read, so I'm leaving this as data, but abstain from any opinion regarding notability. --j⚛e decker 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Digi-Capital

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

Contested A7 speedy, has had Techcrunch and Inc coverage, though notability appears borderline Tawker (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Trivial coverage, references are only brief mentions of the organization. Lacks in-depth articles. reddogsix (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

History of the Greater Western Sydney Football Club

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

Unecessary fork from Greater Western Sydney Giants. The team has only been in existence for two years, and any new material can be merged into Greater Western Sydney Giants#History. Meters (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I _Online 01:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Good fork, content would be lost in a merge. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How will information be lost if it is merged into the history section of the existing article? Meters (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is already too long to be merged without cutting content, and it will only grow from there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep forked content can be more detailed, with a summary left in the main article. All AFL clubs should have a similar dedicated history article. The-Pope (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment SeeKnowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists. Forking simply because other clubs with much longer histories have such articles is not a valid reason. Meters (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  - comment you don't have to respond to ever dissenting view, especially when you put words into my mouth. I didn't actually use any other stuff exists as a reason. To make it clearer, an overly detailed history section would be undue weight in the main article. The comment about other clubs was a side opinion of where we should be heading. The-Pope (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    - Comment Not trying to put words in your mouth, just replying to the obvious implication of a connection between the sentences. Sorry I'm not a mind reader. Meters (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep Knowledge (XXG)'s currently only holding the tiniest fraction of what will be there in due course. Just because this article is a bit ahead of the game, that is no reason to delete it. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment When there is enough material to warrant a fork, then create the article. Until then just merge the material into the main article. Meters (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Year on Year information should be contained within individual season articles. There isn't even a season article for 2013 which would go some way to explain why this information is clogging up the GWS History section. A forked article isn't the place to summarise the goings on of a regular season. Comment: GWS Editors would be better off putting their effort toward creating/maintaining season articles and just putting general historical type information in the History section of the main GWS page. Ck786 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 16:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, but... I believe that there is a valid fork specifically covering the Foundation of the Greater Western Sydney Football Club. There is a good level of detail in the Greater Western Sydney Giants#History section to support an entire article which addresses the background and vagaries of this specific event – provided the referencing for the Early Proposals section is brought up to scratch – which would have undue weight in the main article, but which could form its own self-contained and timeless piece. But the rest of the club's history, comprising three seasons of senior football, is not yet substantial enough to warrant its own article; and the current content is, as Ck786 says, better suited to year-by-year articles. Aspirex (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So you want to keep/create a subset of this article but delete the whole article? As you say the foundation of a club is a significant part of the history of the club, and should be expanded - it wouldn't have undue weighting in an overarching history article. Two of the three possible individual year-by-year articles don't exist yet. This isn't GAR/FAR, the article needs improvement, not worrying about splitting it up further or deleting. The-Pope (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I want to delete the article on the history of the club. But I would not be opposed to a stand-alone article dedicated specifically to the foundation of the club. Aspirex (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

School for visually impaired in Peja

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

Fails WP:Notability (the fact that only 3 results show up on Google is probably testament to this). 23 editor (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment What is the official name of the school? This way we can search for it properly in google to see if it is notable or not. IJA (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be "Dr Xheladin Deda". --Λeternus 08:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Education in Peja if notability can't be found. - Sidelight 12 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Skweez Media

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

Contested speedy, G11, placing on AfD for consensus. Tawker (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep per notability guidelines of organizations and companies which states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources like CNBC news, the Huffington Post, TheStreet.com, The Daily Dot, XBIZ, AVN magazine etc. If there are any promotional text then this can be re-written. Thanks.--Talpatra (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Most of the sources cited in the article were to obvious press releases. Press releases are not allowable, per WP:SPS. I further pruned out a lot of promotional content, such as biographies of the founders. There isn't a whole lot left, but at least the article is built on reliable sources now instead of press releases. The article could probably be expanded dramatically if someone felt like quoting more information from the already-available sources instead of using them for promotional sound bites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the great cleanup but you removed all the XBIZ and AVN sources.--Talpatra (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Those were obvious press releases. As self-published sources, one can source them for simple facts, such as date of incorporation, name of the CEO, etc, but they are definitely not reliable sources for anything else, and they certainly do not help indicate notability. The CNBC piece is pretty long, and it could easily be used to add more content to the article. I don't mind rewriting promotional articles to be more neutral, but that would take more time and effort than I'm willing to expend right now. Maybe later. Now that the article sounds less like an advertisement, I'd feel comfortable voting to keep it, but I'd like to see what other people think first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep as the current revision doesn't look like a promotion and there are significant amount of secondary source discussion. Iniciativass (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Prostate Rectum Spacers

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

This amounts to advertising for a technique that is still under development. Refs 1,2, 3, 4, 11 and 12 do not deal with this product. ref 10 is a press release from the company that makes one of the proposed products Refs 7 & 8 are abstracts, meaning unreviewed preprint. That leaves refs 5, 6, and 9. as possible sources. They are all primary research articles on medical trials of this not yet accepted product. As for style: I note the Capital Letters, and the facts that ttel title is a little misleading--I expected phsyical devices, not injectable fillers.

I'm not sure how we should cover such projects in development, and I've posted at the Medicine Wikiproject. . My own tentative view is that we should cover them only if there is visible interest from more general interest publications. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite being an ingenious and commendable idea, need independent, secondary sources before it would be notable for a Wiki8pedia article. Per DGG's analysis above the topic currently doesn't seem to have solid refs to warrant a stand alone article. Would be worth a brief literature search on PubMed. Is "Prostate rectum spacer" the most common term by which this is called? Lesion 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete I'm not seeing sufficient independent sourcing relevant to the topic to back up much of the article's content, particularly the conclusion (which needs WP:MEDRS sources). I would expect that if the subject has merit, it will gain coverage in secondary sources, but even then, I can't see any reason why it would not merely occupy a paragraph in Prostate cancer #Management. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete Most of the content of this article simply does not match the title of the article, and what is left does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria. I do not see the ambiguity in this that DGG does. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete for lack of secondary sources but leave unsalted. Might be developed and be notable at some point....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Slamacow: Minecraft Animations

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

Per WP:WEB no discernible WP:WEBCRIT. All "references" in article are affiliated/promotional/self-published, and not WP:RS. Most web hits aside from youtube videos refer to "Slamacow", a phrase from Adventure Time. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Seems like it would qualify for speedy deletion under A7. Vectro (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete I agree, would probably qualify for speedy as no notability is even asserted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sea Urchin Editions

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

Non-notable organization. Possible vanity page; created by a possible single-purpose account. Nothing of interest on Google News or Google Books. No article in the Dutch Knowledge (XXG). Vectro (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have also nominated Cold Turkey Press for speedy deletion, and Ben Schot for AfD. These pages are related and have the same author. Vectro (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Failed to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG for me. SarahStierch (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. j⚛e decker 01:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ben Schot

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

Non-notable BLP. Possible vanity page; created by a possible single-purpose account. Nothing of interest on Google News or Google Books. No article in the Dutch Knowledge (XXG). Vectro (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nearly seven years without a reliable source to establish notability, with the article's creator having removed appropriate templates for sources and notability in the interim . JNW (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have also nominated Cold Turkey Press for speedy deletion, and Sea Urchin Editions for AfD. These pages are related and have the same author. Vectro (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and JNW. SarahStierch (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete as failing WP:VERIFY. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Asash language

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

Prodded earlier as unverifiable. I haven't been able to find any sources, including the Farsi source mentioned in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment The wikipedia article has the same author, maybe it makes sense to do an AfD over there first? Vectro (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Not really, we are entirely separate from other Wikipedias and have our own policies and guidelines. This article stands or falls according to our guidelines. I don't write Urdu anyway. Bing translates that articles as "An ancient language that evaluates to a Persian, Pashto and other alsna from the world came into being with the passage of time, but it was weak and fall پاگئی.Today, it is appropriate to say that very few of the speakers or the speakers have been finished but some people there also customs and letters". Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. I've tried verifying this even exists: Nothing. The references had been falsified, one reason there are so few of them. It's a a language found in ancient documents that's been influenced by Urdu, a logical impossibility. It's extinct but has a few hundred speakers, another logical impossibility: It's simply gibberish. Looks like people have been trying to trim the nonsense, but even the one line that's left contradicts itself. The WP-urdu article is garbage too, and it would be good to delete both, but that's rather beside the point for us. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment the author (on Urdu-WP) says that it is an old language and there is no reference available on net but he claims that a persian bookQadeem Irani Tehzeeb (ancient Aryan Civilization) have written about this language, by the way this article isn't verified on Urdu Wp, English Wp works as reference for Urdu Wp. Urdu Wp delete this article if here it is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.118.207 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - yes, this article says something about a book, but it is impossible to identify what book this is so it fails WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete. This is quite possibly a hoax (as argued by kwami), or at best unverifiable (as argued by Dougweller). Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was Keep. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dayanand Shetty

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

The person, Dayanand Shetty has not won any major award and as per the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines does not deserve to have a page on Knowledge (XXG).Also, the page has only 2 references and nothing is properly referenced. Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Even a cursory Google research reveals tons of sources. Vectro (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Many people want to have a wikipedia page but not all get it. This person's name should direct at the C.I.D. page. If he wins a major award, then add it. Otherwise this article is not adequate for Knowledge (XXG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've undone the out-of-procedure redirect and improper CSD tag. No opinion. ansh666 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep per my Google search. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

'redirect' to C.I.D. (Indian TV series). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 08:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. Some issues with article, but it appears editors are working them out, from reading the discussion I believe a keep is warranted Tawker (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Friendly artificial intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How else can one make informed criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep or merge. Secondary sources found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation for Reformatting

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

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Finance

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

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Seems to have been created by a single-purpose account. Vectro (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this subject under WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker 01:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Turazzi (Tura)

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

Article about a footballer (soccer player) that fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Played for S.C. Caronnese A.S.D. in Serie D. That is a non-professional league ( 5th ranked league in Italy). Claims about experiences with professional clubs as a youth player do not make him notable. Ben Ben (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ben Ben (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Speedy deleted on the Italian Knowledge (XXG): it:Andrea_Turazzi_(Tura) today.--Ben Ben (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete Seems pretty clear to me. Vectro (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Requests for checkuser may be made at WP:SPI. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Allyson Stewart-Allen

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

Lack of Notability The sources referenced in the article give the impression of notability but, upon checking them out, one finds that they're about the subject's profession in general, rather than the subject herself. For example, the links to NPR and CNN articles (see here and here) are about the need for corporations, especially big ones, to have properly trained, professional PR persons - which is the field the article's subject is working in. Moreover, the article has been created by a contributor whose sole contribution in Knowledge (XXG) concerns the article in question and that alone. It's written like a dedicated fan's page: For example, the subject's alleged nickname, "Muse of Marketing," is a very strong term, yet it does not seem to appear in any major media. The Gnome (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Although there are plenty of citations, none of them support the notability of the subject. Created by a possible Single-Purpose Account. Most of the references do not even support the article itself. Feels like a very elaborately-crafted vanity page, which is unsurprising given the subject of the article. Vectro (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. The heavily promotional text and misleading use of references (many of which fail to mention the subject and others of which quote her briefly but are not about her) makes it hard to assume good faith about its author and makes this into a borderline case for a G11 speedy deletion. Even if the subject has some notability (hard to tell from all the puffery here) WP:TNT applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete as promotional dross. More formally, notability not found in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC).
Delete with prejudice per the above. I get a strong whiff of paid/promotional editing... --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete looks like promo. The only thing I could confirm about her was that she is married to Nottingham North MP Graham Allen. Strangely, this isn't mentioned in the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Seems more like an advert than an encyclopedic article, Also fails GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete and check user - I was unable to find Allyson Stewart-Allen in most of the sources given here which are not solid secondary references anyway. Blocked User:Allyson Stewart-Allen added the wife and personal information to the Graham Allen, see diff here and blocked on October 29, 2008 by Kimchi with an expiry time of indefinite. User:PegB, who arrived April 4, 2010, seems to have a similar set of interests to the blocked user. On February 14, 2010, PegB removed the prior personal information edit to Mr. Allen's page, see here. PegB has edited four pages, but the bulk of her edits occur on two: Allyson Stewart-Allen and Graham Allen. I first became aware of User PegB from two images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as own work. Both were subsequently deleted. Please see (a) my nomination here and (b) a nomination by another Commons admin for the deletion discussions. I see a pattern of not reading the instructions on the project, and not understanding - or failing to care - that Knowledge (XXG) isn't a social media platform or a place for self-promotion. While maintaining my WP:AGF on all users of the project, when I add my lifetime reality filters, I see a pattern of WP:COI editing between the two pages as well as the possibility of WP:SOCK between a previously blocked user and PegB. Incidentally the pages John Quelch and Glocalization could be checked for additional COI or advocacy; Mr. Quelch's entry is very light on references. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep. j⚛e decker 01:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

2016 ICC World Twenty20

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

The articles has unsufficient references. The only reference mentioned is also not verifying the term that "the tournament is scheduled to held in India". UBS talk 07:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Having "unsufficient references" is not a valid reason to delete. Lugnuts 08:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep If all the previous years' competitons are notable, no reason to think this one wouldn't be. Vectro (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep as notable just like 2018 FIFA World Cup. It's future tournament which is held in India.Prateek Malviya 12:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep quick google search would show us how important this page should exist on Knowledge (XXG). Definite keep. Daan0001 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1950–51 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team

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

Nomination withdrawn by nominator Flat Out let's discuss it 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No claim or evidence of notability. There are dozens of these articles and they dont seem to fit NP:NSEASONS. Unless there is some criteria that I'm not aware of, listing every season of a college team does not seem to be encyclopedic. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Flat Out let's discuss it 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep Why in the 1950–51 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team page notabale? I do not see you going after that page as not being notable? Because they are both major NCAA basketball programs. I have created many Wisconsin pages because they are a very notable program and their football and basketball programs have had prolonged success. Part of the college basketball project is to create pages for all seasons and I am just doing my part. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's notable either. I have no doubt they are major and successful programs but that doesnt make every season notable unless there is a criteria for this that Im not aware of. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment This doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NSEASONS. Will need to see evidence that WP:GNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree as the Wisconsin Badgers DO satisfy WP:NSEASONS as they have elite college football and basketball programs. Redmen44 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment If you can explain how the team meets the NSEASONS criteria I will happily withdraw nomination. From my reading, not all college seasons are immediately notable even if a particular season is Flat Out let's discuss it 12:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think I did explain why because WP:NSEASONS states "For programs considered elite in a sport many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome". That fits the Wisconsin Basketball program. The Badgers basketball program won three per-tournament Helms Championships in the early 1900's and were Big Ten Champions 14 times from 1907 through 1947. The program then struggled with only limited success until the 90's when the program was built back into a contender by coach Dick Bennett. After a Final Four run in 1999–2000 as an #8 seed, Bennett surprising left the team after three games into the following season. After the 2000-01 season, Wisconsin hired Bo Ryan who had coached the previous two seasons at UW–Milwaukee and won four Division III Basketball Championships at UW–Platteville. Wisconsin and Bo Ryan have been to the NCAA Tournament 13 straight seasons (I think only Kansas has a longer consecutive streak) under Ryan and currently are in the Final Four. By creating all of Wisconsin's individual basketball seasons, it shows how the program has gone from elite to a struggling program and back to elite again. In all of the Wisconsin Basketball individual seasons I have included the entire game by game schedule which can not be said for many other individual college basketball seasons (for example: the 1950–51 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and almost all of the Michigan Basketball seasons do not even show their schedule only their rosters). I hope this helps. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep per Redmen44, this does meet NSEASONS. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep per NSEASONS. Wisconsin can claim multiple national championships, several Final Four appearances, and his been a major college program in the entirety of its history. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Wisconsin is a far cry from NSEASONS examples of "Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas." Perhaps NSEASONS should be clarified further if the consensus is a national championship or X Final Four appearances, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think NSEASONS should be expanded to include all power conference teams. Northern Antarctica (₵) 13:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - not sure how I feel about this one, because it's definitely on the fence. I will say that Wisconsin generally rates as a top 30 program all-time (#28 when ESPN ranked them for their College Basketball Encyclopedia). They aren't elite (top 15 program), but are probably in that next group. Rikster2 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Tawker (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Vertcoin

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

Delete, non notable Crypto-currency. While it does have some coverage most is trivial and it would require a rewrite to make this encyclopedic. I originally nominated as advertisment csd and this was declined. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable Crypto, fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability. Minor coverage is trivial. Potential advertisement. Waltsen (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment, This account appears to be a WP:SPA with no contributions to Knowledge (XXG) besides this discussion. Valoem 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. The only independent RS coverage referenced in the article is the International Business Times ref. On its own, this is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep Article was covered in IBT which is RS, the coverage was not trivial either, also covered by Coin Chomp. Article's tone appears to be neutral, does not have weasel words, and has been cited by Coin Market Cap as the 20th largest cryptocurrency. Article appears to meet notability requirements and does not seem to be a self promotion.Valoem 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil 05:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

~~Weak keep~~ - Covered by Yahoo News and International Business Times. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment-the yahoo link is just a repost from International Business Times, and is marked as such.Dialectric (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How did I not notice that? Now a weak delete. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, GNG does not depend on the amount of secondary source coverage, but on the amount of significant coverage of published reliable sources with reputations for fact checking. ––Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete failure of WP:GNG, one mention in International Business Times doesn't cut it. Your market cap a shit, and doesn't establish notability either. Citation Needed | Talk 20:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep this coin is notable because it is the first coin to use Scrypt-n. Once ASIC's for scrypt become widely available this difference becomes much more important. There will be (or are) other coins using scrypt-n, but the first one is notable. Ariel. (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ coin is notable as the first coin using a new algorithm (Scrypt-n) and already has three imitators as seen on the cryptocurrency mining calculator, CoinWarz. However, the article does need to be edited to make it seem like less of an advertisement. We don't care if the coin's creator worked for Accenture or Microsoft, the coin stands on its own merits.Kb3edk (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE on update: I crossed out the word "Keep" and added an explanation in brackets per Kb3edk's suggestion on 31 March to change his vote, to make it clearer to the reviewer. ––Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 05:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep - this coin has a reasonable amount of usage judging by the market cap. Also it is bringing new technology - scrypt-n. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: This dispute may have been the target of meatpuppetry originating from Reddit: 64-upvote post on /r/vertcoin linking to this discussion, and on Talk:Vertcoin there are a few new/previously inactive editors all saying similar things - one of them mentioned they came from Reddit. ProtossPylon 20:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Market cap doesn't matter. A novel proof-of-work algorithm doesn't matter. All that matters is significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Well I don't post on Reddit or even mine Vertcoin but when I saw the new Scrypt-n algorithm pop up on the CoinWarz mining calculator, showing Vertcoin next to it, I went to this article to read up on it and was surprised to see this article already being prepped for deletion. But I guess mining calculators do fail the Knowledge (XXG) test as "reliable sources" as they are more of a technical reference for miners like me. Also, it's true that independent media coverage of this coin is practically nil at this point, that will only change later this year when all the Scrypt ASICs force the hobbyist miners like me onto this coin. Feel free to change my vote above from "Keep" to Weak delete in case this matters. BTW, nice snarky comments from the Dogecoin article's writer Citation Needed up above too, don't worry bro I'm still mining your coin for a few more months. Kb3edk (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep. Coverage is a bit thin, but these two full-length articles ought to be enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Strong delete. Does not meet WP:GNG because of insufficient reliable sources. I just removed all the citations to forum posts, email archives, personal blogs, and articles about other topics which didn't mention Vertcoin or verify the statements in the article. All that remained was one article by IBT, and a bunch of citations to Vertcoin. My opinion on some arguments for keeping:

Not RS: Dailydot.com suggested by User:King of Hearts; originally self-published on medium.com, and republished as as an "opinion" piece by DailyDot (note URL).
Duplicate: Yahoo article, as previously pointed out, is a republication of the IBT article.
Not RS: Coinchomp.com suggested by User:valoem, but opinions will vary; to me it's closer to a blog than a publication with a reputation for fact checking; it describes itself as a "Bitcoin Tech & Culture Blog", and doesn't mention editorial policies or an editorial board.
Invented keep criteria: User:Jonpatterns's suggestions of "a reasonable amount of usage judging by the market cap" and "bringing new technology".

Agyle (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete . Currency entry without enough notability. ONaNcle (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Mayank singh

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

uncited stub also fails notability. Lfstevens (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Ridiculous linking in this WP:SPA article: "poor" linked to Standard & Poors, "rich" to a compare-your-income site. No evidence of notability; fails WP:BLP and also I think CSD A7 which I have flagged. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexis Rodney

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

This page fails general notability, stated under the WP:ENT heading. Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by general notability?

Please see the added wikilink now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - subject's roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT at this time, and I'm not finding coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete - although his purported upcoming film appearance may mean the re-creation of the article. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rocks (TV show)

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

Non-notable TV show. None of the refs that mention the subject have the in depth coverage and independence required. Most refs are to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. The AZ Daily source is the closest to independent, but it's based on an interview with the the producer and has the shows PR contacts on the bottom. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete A non-notable local TV show playing on a cable TV service in one small tourist town in Arizona. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete pretty much per Stuartyeates and Cullen. I didn't realize how non-notable this show was until I read that "Development" paragraph--5000 households can maybe see this. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Stu.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Too local. Not enough non-local coverage. Less than 100 hits for "the rocks" "dev ross" -wikipedia, which leads me to believe that it's simply not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Article was already tagged (appropriately) as A7 - §FreeRangeFrog 06:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DJ O

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

Piguy101 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability for this 10 year old entertainer. By the way, Piguy101, you are supposed to explain the reasons why the article should be deleted. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Technically we have 5 keeps, 2 deletes, and 1 merge & redirect, which arithmetically means no consensus very close to keep. (I could have relisted it and we might have got a clear keep as a result). Essentially, we are discussing whether WP:ONEEVENT applies. This discussions are best held quite some time after event. If in a year someoneh would still wish to nominate her, try. At this point, the article is kept by default.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz Wahl

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

I believe this article was created too soon and is based entirely on a momentary scandal. We cannot promote some aspiring young lady who decided to improve her popularity ratings. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 30. —cyberbot I _Online 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep'Liz Wahl made national and international headlines when she took a bold public stance. She has shined a light on Russia's current effort to promote propaganda and silence free speech. There is a reason her message spread throughout the world. In light of Russia's current actions in Ukraine, Wahl's message was timely and valuable. The theories out there that aim to discredit her were fabricated by RT. She is an honorable young lady with a promising future ahead of her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontherecord27 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ontherecord27 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep dreaming, Liz. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ontherecord27, if you want the article to stay, you should place the word "Keep" in front of your contribution, in bold. And if you got some valuable additional info, please feel free to improve the article. I am not sure what my vote will be, but I'm only giving you some advice. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep if improved Liz Wahl was an anchor on a heavily distributed YouTube based show for 2 1/2 years. I think there should be an article on her. But I'd agree the current article isn't about Liz Wahl in general but rather about one media incident. I'd like to see if the article can be improved by covering other incidents and other facts. That being said I'm not seeing much content about her. So keep if the article can be improved otherwise delete CD-Host (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a viable argument! If you can improve it, improve it. If you can't or don't want to, then it should be judged as it is. The deletion process gives people a week to improve the article. You can't keep it just because you think it's notable. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep & Improve As per above the article focuses primarily on the incident and not her ... But I'm sure with improvements all can be changed & improved. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete Totally fails the rules against one-event articles. This might rate mention in an article entirled Media coverage of the Crimea crisis, but it does not rate its own article. We don't have articles for people who participated in similar grandstanding during WWI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Redirect and/or merge for the moment to a Controversies and criticisms of RT-article that needs to be revived. Like there are controversy-articles on all major news-networks, there was one on RT (see ). However, this one was merged with RT News without a serious discussion. I suggest we reinstate it. For the moment, we could add Liz Wahl's story to it. If her career continues to be notable after this, we can reinstate a seperate article again. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep & Improve Liz Wahl was a nationally known news anchor seen on the RT web site, the RT YouTube channel, and broadcast over-the-air on the MHz WorldView network (broadcast by many U.S. public television channels) for more than two years. Many far less prominent local television anchors have a Knowledge (XXG) page. Liz Wahl was sufficiently notable that she probably should have had a Knowledge (XXG) page long before her resignation incident. X5dna (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep and Improve Liz Wahl was well enough known that she should have an article. The current article just needs improvement, as right now it focuses on one incident. As I understand it, that violates Wiki guidelines; however, it should be fixed, not deleted. -- Necro Shea mo 00:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aryan Chauhan

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

Unremarkable model, fails WP:NMODEL. All references are simply photographs of the subject on a catwalk. No significant references from reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete - not able to find reliable secondary sources to evidence notability under WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker 01:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Northern Antarctica ₵ 03:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was merge to SM Supermalls. I believe there's enough discussion here to suggest a consensus for merging this into SM Supermalls or a list of same, but I don't believe there's sufficient discussion to show consensus on wider questions of other SM properties. j⚛e decker 01:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

SM Center Muntinlupa

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. shopping mall are not inherently notable. created by an editor who went on a spree of creating Philipino mall articles. the only coverage I found is for directory listings for shops located in this mall and other routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think malls(or at least regional malls which is what this is) are inherently notable now. This mall is around the same size as a mall I recently nominated for deletion Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Columbia Mall (Missouri). The attempt was a colossal failure. One person cited WP:OUTCOMES as a reason to keep which I thought was just another form of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but as you see the article was not deleted, so I guess this applies here as well. Another thing that came up was that I needed to provide evidence to prove that the mall wasn't notable which included making a trip to the areas local library to look at newspaper archives. Sounds ridiculous to me, but again the article wasn't deleted, so I guess this is the way deletion discussions work now (I hadn't participated in one since 07 or 08). Me5000 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge along with all the others into List of SM Supermalls or into SM Supermalls leaving redirects. Malls may be inherently notable, but that doesn't mean each one has to have a separate article. Other wise Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Merge I agree. I researched this topic briefly when the AfD first opened. I think this is a super center based on counting the number of stores from a list. I think a group article would serve the needs of the encyclopedia at this time. Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pingb

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

Notability not established / OR. The author of the software has produced what is claimed to be better than ping (and probably is), but no-one seems to have noticed yet. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find reliable secondary sources that would be required to evidence notability via WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker 01:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Executive Insight

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

Apparently non-notable niche magazine stub with no mentions in reliable sources. Benboy00 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NMAG at this time. Gongshow talk 17:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete - Similarly, I was uanble to find sources evidencing WP:GNG. Highbeam showed a lot of bare hits, but after some time, I was unable to find one which did not appear to be a press release. --j⚛e decker 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 03:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

SM Harrison

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

fails WP:ORG and GNG . Shopping malls are not inherently notable. Only coverage I found merely confirmed it is a stand alone department store. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tawker (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bang Bang Romeo

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

Non-notable band with limited airplay, fails WP:BAND, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - The band is completely non-notable, the article makes no attempt to justify its inclusion and its purpose seems to be essentially as an advertisement for the band. IMHO, it should really be a speedy deletion.--Hazel77 21:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Tawker (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Final Four

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

The subject matter about which this article describes is already discussed, and will be extensive at 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament upon conclusion of the tournament on April 7. Therefore, this page is not needed, as it just duplicates information already discussed on a larger, more central page. Ben 00:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete - the tournament article is sufficient to cover the Final Four. We have intentionally not created final four articles for past years at WP:CBB. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I could find no discussion about Final Four/Championship Game articles at WP:WikiProject College Basketball (to which your link does not point). Unless there was one I couldn't find, it is quite obviously not an intentional decision of the WikiProject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Rikster2, but only if a redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament is not a better option. Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete. An optimistic Michigan fan created this as fancruft. WP:CBB does not create Final Four articles when the comprehensive NCAA Tournament article exists. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Although I wouldn't be opposed to creating an article on the championship game. ~EDDY ~ 20:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to page as stated above, the coverage will be on that page and the redirect will let people serch for final four also and be sent to the NCAA page TheMesquito (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to the pertinent section of the tournament page, per the above; that would be a good policy for all " Final Four" titles. Simple_butpowerful 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete Develop in 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament unless WP:SPINOUT is warranted (historically, no). No redirect as per Final Four, there are a bunch of other "Final Fours", and we get into the gender ambiguity as well.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Knowledge (XXG) almost always has articles for the "final stages" of major sporting competitions (the major exceptions should be gold medal matches in the Olympics), whether or not their parent articles are developed at all. I realize that it is completely optional and depends on the people on whether to have one for this type of event, but the argument that "the parent article is shitty/awesome" is invalid. As long as there enough sources to go around to create a real article, there's no reason not to. –H T D 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I am baffled by the rush to delete and agree with HTD - almost all sports have a tournament article and a final game article (even much less popular sports than NCAA basketball). I realize there has not been a Final Four/final game article in past years, but there is absolutely no policy based reason for that. The F4/final game are quite obviously independently notable. Having both a F4 article and a final game article would be overkill, so at most it should be one. If no one desires to write a decent final article, then the main article is sufficient, but if some one wants to write a good final article they should certainly be allowed to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Since the current article is poor, I am fine with redirecting at this time, but only as an editorial decision based on quality, not as a "this shouldn't exist as an article" decision. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)