< 12 April	14 April >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majuba Aviation crash[edit]

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

This crash is not notable enough to warrant an article. It is just one more of thousands of instances of light aircraft crashing in poor weather. There has been no significant coverage, just a few news reports, which even in South Africa appear to have been identical in their wording. It does not meet WP:GNG, fails under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and does not meet WP:AIRCRASH either. It has been suggested elsewhere that notability might have been conferred by the number of deaths, but I do not agree - nowhere is it stated that number of deaths is an inclusion criterion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a light aircraft, the inclusion requirements are a bit more strict than with other aviation accident articles. While one might argue that the death count, and the identity of one of the victims as the CEO of Italtile Ltd, it must be considered that the company itself, Italtile, is not notable enough to merit its own article (it's a South African tile, ceramic, and bath accessory import/export company.) Additionally the accident does not meet WP:RS standards -- the few articles that mention the crash are either verbatim copies of the same wire story, or focus entirely on the CEO of Italtile and possible successors. As the cause of the accident was ATC error rather than any form of terrorism, malfunctioning hardware, or negligence, there is little hope that the incident will gain notability over time. Moreso than the inability to find reliable secondary sources, the incident and article completely fail to establish long-term notability per WP:EVENT. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You seem to be basing your opinion that Italtile is not a notable company on the fact that there is no article about it here on WP yet - that is circular reasoning. Italtile is a large company in South Africa and IMHO would easily meet WP:CORP. This incident would best fit as a section in such an article rather than as a stand alone article. The aircraft operator itself is a subsidiary of Italtile anyway - Majuba Aviation is simply Italtile's company plane operating division. It is not a separate entity such as an airline or charter operator. Roger (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually my opinion is based on the fact that the event clearly does not yet meet notability requirements, or show any long-term notability per WP:EVENT, and most importantly the fact that it's clearly lacking reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). The Italtile notability (or not, whatever it may be) is just a side note, and additional contributor, IMO, to a delete argument. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although under 5,700kg, the PC-12 is not exactly a "light aircraft". Although not a RS itself, the ASN Wikibase entry has links to seven RS web articles covering the crash. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They're all essentially the same article and rehash the same information. The ones that still exist on the internets that is. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Request, If the result of this AFD is to delete, I would like to have the content of the article "sandboxed" under my user page as I intend to create an article for Italtile in the near future - which would be the "natural" home for the information about this incident. I'm not sure how such a move to userspace is done so I would apreciate some advice/assistance. Roger (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take over that request. --KzKrann (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why - so you can try to sneak it back in later, the way you did with ACE Flight 22 last week?

That won't happen. If an article on Italtile is created, and the accident is covered as a section of Italtile, the current title can redirect to that section. If this is done, then I will protect the redirect from editing by anyone who is not an admin, thus preventing recreation of the article against consensus. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've done with Alaska Central Express Flight 22 and ACE Flight 22. KzKrann, you need to learn that sometimes consensus is against you. When it is, you need to accept the fact with good grace (or put another way, you can't win 'em all). Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Commercial flight, 9 people died, and Air Traffic Control errors are pretty rare. --KzKrann (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Not a "commercial flight" in the sense of a airline or even a charter flight. It's the company's own plane transporting the company's own executives and some other business associates - not fare-paying passengers. There is no credible source of any evidence of ATC error. The accident investigation report has not yet been published. Roger (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9 people died, that's enough for me. --KzKrann (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and User:Mukkakukaku's reasoning. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 died, nuff said. And if its atc its notable Mirriam3333 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AIRCRAFT states that light aircraft crashes are much more common, so the number of deaths does not equal notability on its own. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As has been pointed out already, there is no evidence presented that there was any ATC error - I think WP:SYNTH might be involved as far as that statement goes. As has also been pointed out, number of deaths does not confer notability. Also, the PC-12 has a MTOW of less than 5,700kg so is by definition a light aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider that number of deaths does make for notability, The Aviation project may think otherwise, but they are in my opinion thinking about what makes things notable to aircraft enthusiasts, not the general public. I agree that what makes things notable to specialists is notable, but they may not realize that what the rest of the world has its own ideas about what makes things notable. For them, I think the primary factor is number of fatalities, or notable people killed, or those in a special group. Project guidelines are valid only to the extent the general consensus agrees that they are--we are not a group of specialized encyclopedias but a single Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So where does your "death notability threshold" lie - six deaths? Seven? Eight? Is it nine? Does it apply to events like a ferry sinking in Indonesia, or a bus crash in Kenya, or a sixty-car pile-up on an autobahn in Germany? Do those sorts of events have a different "death notability threshold"? YSSYguy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whenever an aircraft crashes and there is a single death this is sufficient for WP:AIRCRASH. The exception to this is light aircraft (which applies to this situation). The reasoning for this is that "light aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger aircraft, most of which are non-notable." I believe that a light aircraft crashing with casualties is not notable to the general public, as it is a much more common occurrence. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there do not have to be any deaths for an incident to be notable. If there are deaths, a greater number of deaths adds more weight to the case for notability, but does not guarantee notability. Mjroots (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe anyone said otherwise. One of the possible criteria for aircraft crashes is if it was fatal. That's the one we're discussing, not the other criteria, as the number of deaths was the criteria used in DGG's reasoning for notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Conklin[edit]

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

A claim, of sorts, of notability, so probably not eligable for CSD-A7, but concerns about the credibility of said "notability". Her IMDB page gives a single credit, for the made for TV movie "Sharktopus" in which she played the part "Bikini Girl with Bum". Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extreme shortness of career and lack of coverage show this article as failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG. While I wish her well, the article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, WP:BIO. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage or roles. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as per WP:BIO. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. If someone wants to propose a rename, be my guest. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable[edit]

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

This page was discussed here, but nothing came of it. This page is entirely based on subjective conjecture. Who is to say which record is "unbreakable" and which is not? Who "considers" which record unbreakable? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial revisions needed - I'm not ready to say dump the article. But there are some issues with it. For one thing, there is no reason someone couldn't throw 2 consecutive no-hitters. It was done once, it was almost done a second time, so it could happen again. Also, regarding Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, SABR figger filberts think it's literally the most unbreakable, because it's so statistically anomolous with the other hitting streak records. But still, it could be broken if someone set out deliberately to do so. They used to call Gehrig's 2,130 unbreakable, and Ripken destroyed it, so there's no reason someone else couldn't do likewise. The other items on the list are mostly because of fundamental changes in the nature of the game... and who's to say the game won't change again someday? I can knock most of the items down if you'd like. :) P.S. Ty Cobb's official career batting average is .367. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I googled [sabr records unbreakable], and this interesting item[1] came up. It's worth reading, and it's clear that this current article is nowhere close. There are many, many more records considered unbreakable, so the list herein is nothing more than a sample of some of the most obvious ones. The first 8-plus pages of that link list the various changes in game conditions over the years. The actual list starts about the bottom of page 9 and continues through page 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One amusing example: 4 - Most saves in one World Series (John Wetteland 1996). Unless the World Series is changed to more games than the current best-4-of-7 (which has been that way since 1922), it is literally impossible for that record to be broken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Often, during Yankee games, if one fielder makes all three put outs in the inning, Michael Kay mentions that he tied a major league record. Perhaps that should be added as an unbreakable record, because nobody ever seems to get a fourth put out. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but also note that it is easily possible for a pitcher to be credited for 4 (or more) strikeouts in one inning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And since that is concretely defined, we have a page for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would at least group the records by "rationale".
  - Some records are impossible to approach, let alone break, due to the nature of the game. Example: 749 career complete games by Cy Young, in 22 seasons. That's an average of 34 per season. That, of course, accounts for his won-lost record in the 500s and the 300s respectively. Halladay led all big leaguers last year... with 9. I doubt he can pitch for 83 years and catch up to Young.
  - Some records are literally impossible to break, such as Wetteland's 4 saves in the 4 Yankees wins in the 1996 Series.
  - Some records are theoretically reachable but statistically unlikely. Joe D's hitting streak usually floats to the top of that list.
- ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link to "this article's entry" on the article page is a red link. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was for me too, but it seems OK now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's happened to me in the past too. Sometimes AfD's are a little slow to load like that. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This brings to mind List of movies considered the worst ever. If you can find a reliable source that a record is unbreakable, then it belongs in the article. If it's just some fan's ideas, whether based on sabermetrics or tea leaves, it should go. If there are no reliable sources in support of any of the material, then delete the article. Ma^t_chups 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "List of movies considered the worst" is also opinion-driven, but it's a preponderance of opinions by professional critics. Also, the finished product is there to see and evaluate. There's no crystal ball involved. With any kind of predictions, it's always at best a "calculated guess". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Allow me to copy and past what I have stated on the other page: As the original creator of the aforementioned page, I thought I might take a second to weigh in on this. Granted the sources are not its strong suit, and background information is certainly lacking. However my intentions were to set the framework for a potentially substantial article. I see many pages related to sports on Wikipedia and it seemed like there there was room for a page about baseball records that have may stand the test of time. I always found the rich history of the game to be fascinating and over the years have heard/read about various records that we will "never" see broken. If someone put in the time to do some serious upgrades, this would be a very involved and interesting article. I highly recommend keeping the page and encourage its expansion. If I was talented enough and had the time I would give it a shot, until then I hope others will carry the torch.

I am not opposed to a reimagining of the article, but I am strongly opposed to flat out deleting it without some sort of an outlet to view these types of records on Wikipedia. We all know of many questionable articles, including others that are sports related, that are definitely on the subjective side. This may be one of them as well, however any baseball fan will certainly know about the history of the game and how these records are acknowledged by fans, writers, and even players. I provided basic references in hopes that someone else with more Wikipedia experience would be able to more easily source these.

I find it fascinating that this is up for deletion. Yes it needs work/expansion/retooling, but in no way is this something that should be banished from Wikipedia. If anything, each of these records should be expanded enough to get their own page. These are great records with a rich history that many people know about, let's not wipe this from our memories just because it's sourced like an amateur and has a subjective element to it. - RoadView (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in here. Did you get a chance to read the SABR-related link that I posted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look over the article and it becomes evident that their are plenty of trivial records out there. I suppose what separates those trivial records from these is that the records on here are ones that are widely known and more substantial than say "least putouts in 1 inning". Again, unless someone is going to either replace this article with a new and improved page, or create an in depth article for each record, then I say keep this until an editor decides to do so. As for renaming to something like "List of MLB records that have stood for 50 years", that's not bad but that does not leave room for a record such as Fernando Tatis' 2 grand slams in 1 inning which I'm sure most people with agree that that is not going to be broken and deserves a mention at some capacity. Either way I just hope that someone will bring some form of an encyclopedic class article on this topic to fruition. - RoadView (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to rescinding my nomination of this article, but not in its present form. It would need a complete rehaul complete with reliable sourcing. It's the subjective nature of that potential sourcing that makes me think it may not be possible to make this properly encyclopedic, but I'm open to being proven wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In reality, there are only records that are highly unlikely to be broken given today's conditions. However, conditions have changed throughout Major League Baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. Both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus, as I recall, have written about this in the past year. I don't believe there is a sufficiently well-founded central thesis for the concept of records that are considered unbreakable; each record requires its own explanation of the state of the game in the context of the achievement, why the record is difficult to break today, and what conditions would have to return (or be introduced) in order for the record to no longer be considered unbreakable. As such, I think the list is in danger of being a list of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I suggest that the articles for each achievement in question be expanded if necessary to include reliably-sourced discussion of how the changing conditions of MLB over the years have affected the ability to set new highs/lows for the achievement. isaacl (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so keen on zapping the article altogether, but the way it is right now seems highly subjective and random. But there may be a way around it: How about listing records that have stood for X number of years? Joe D's record, for example, was set 70 years ago this summer. Cobb's career batting record was set in 1928, i.e. his last year of play. There's plenty of room for explanations about changing conditions. And there could be a section on records that are impossible to break, such as 3 outs by one fielder in one inning, and 0 putouts in one game (although they're a tad trivial). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the article title should be changed to "MLB records established at least 50 years" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs's idea is not a bad idea. Why not just make this a chronological list of the longest-held baseball records, and retitle it. As with others, I think this has potential, and with a slight rename, we can both WP:PRESERVE the history and make this into a workable list. I propose a rename to List of longest held Major League Baseball records. --Jayron32 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A list or a table or something, with the year the record was established. An example could be Pete Rose's career hits total, coupled with his retirement year of 1986 which is when the record was established. The records can be had from Retrosheet or various other sources such as the Elias annual. Retrosheet[2] is probably a good place to start, and maybe cross-verified so we're not using just one source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the other hand, if we go that far with it, we're almost duplicating List of Major League Baseball record holders. I wonder if the two articles could be combined somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge as per above. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with List of Major League Baseball record holders. Without better sources it's a relative topic; obviously with how the game has changed over the years it is unlikely that many of these will ever be broken. It's an interesting list for other sites but, it's WP's job to report the stats, not comment on them. Somebody could clean up the record holder's list (it needs it anyway) and add a section for the longest held records; that would be adequate to me. black ngold29 16:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The MLB.com site has a list of longest-standing records, both still-standing and historically long-standing:[3] It is by no means all-inclusive, but it's something, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surpisingly, Keep. I was expecting to say 'Delete' here, but on closer examination it does seem like this is a concept that has been discussed in reliable sources; on that basis, I think this article is acceptable a sublist of List of Major League Baseball record holders, and not original research or speculation. The important thing, though, is that this should be a list of MLB records that have been considered unbreakable by reliable sources; not simply declared 'unbreakable' by Wikipedia editors. Any entry on this list should have sources, and preferably more than one. I think it would also be encyclopaedic (and interesting) to include mention of records which were formerly considered 'unbreakable', but have since in fact been broken, if any good examples come to mind (I'm not a baseball fan myself, so wouldn't know). Robofish (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoregion[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Not widely established concept beyond a few none notable academics. Mootros (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep 1120 Google scholar hits, over 1300 G Book hits, with hundreds of different authors in dealing with the Americas, Europe, and Asia, showing very wide usage in geography, history, biology, meteorology, public health, political science, business, agriculture.etc.. For G Scholar and GS Books, about half of them are significant RS references so it can be greatly expanded. With respect to Brazil, it is a formal designation, as shown by the article Mesoregion (Brazil), and about half the GS hits refer to that country (leaving several hundred for the more general meaning). Possibly the articles can be combined. So on what basis does the nom. make his statement "a few non-notable academics"? This is why we have WP:BEFORE, and this nomination shows the results of ignoring that part of deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—meets the general notability guideline as used in e.g. the following sources: [4], [5], [6]. Also, notability is not recursive. Spacepotato (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microregion[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Not widely established concept beyond a few none notable academics. Mootros (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep over 9 thousand Google scholar hits, over 13 thousand G Book hits, with many hundreds of different authors in dealing with the Americas, Europe, and Asia, showing very wide usage in geography, history, biology, meteorology, public health, political science, business, agriculture.etc. About half of them are significant RS references so it can be greatly expanded. With respect to Brazil, it is a formal designation, as shown by the article Microregion (Brazil), and about half the GS hits refer to that country (leaving several thousand for the more general meaning). Possibly the articles can be combined. So on what basis does the nom. make his statement "a few non-notable academics"? This is why we have WP:BEFORE, and this nomination shows the results of ignoring that part of deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, notable. Unhelpful AfD. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballish Keep Clearly notable. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomm Mandryk[edit]

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

Autobiographical article. Does not seem to satisfy WP:PEOPLE, but also does not seem to qualify for CSD#A7. References are listed (some reliable), but they do not seem to assert enough notability for the subject. Most sources mention how subject has raised funds, althought most of the article is original research and unencyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although a little reluctantly. Certainly, a motivated young man who wants to do good, and has carried through that desire with action. However, the coverage, is light, and comes only from community newspapers. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. He sounds like a fine young man (although a lot of the information is unverified and the tone of the article is way too reverential), but the notability is just not there. I find one newspaper reference, in Niagara This Week. A CBC interview is mentioned but I could not find it. Three awards are claimed, but there is no indication of who actually presents the Youth Citizen of the Year Award or the Social Justice Award, while the Lieutenant Governor's Award turns out to be given to 1100 secondary school students every year [7]. Nice, but not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renascence Bulldogge[edit]

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

No reliable sources could be found. — anndelion ※ 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As there is no independent referencing available. Miyagawa (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources found at Google are self-referential or non-reliable (social media etc.). Google News Archive finds one passing mention - the only independent confirmation I found that the breed actually exists. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase Showdown (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting. Last AFD closed as no consensus; only keep arguments presented were WP:ITSNOTABLE, with one person digging up a one-sentence mention in Billboard and calling it sufficient. Besides one album on a notable label, I see nothing else at all that makes the band meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Previous AFD closed barely a month ago, nothing has changed. After an inappropriate A7 was rejected, the prod nomination did nothing but complain about the A7 rejection, then the AFD nom was mostly complaining about the prod removal, inaccurately. Now this nomination complains about the (accurate) AFD close, not too accurately. In the absence of any effort to address the substance of the keep arguments, in particular Carrite's analysis, the community's time shouldn't be wasted by a pointless rehashing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the lack of sources? Does that not bother you? As I pointed out, only two were found in the last AFD: one was trivial and one was primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very recent AfD, Carrite makes some reasonable points, in my opinion. In support of that perspective, it was fairly easy for me to find an album review from that era in the music newspaper Melody Maker. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think one review can carry a whole article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least basic notability has been achieved and the editor Paul Erik has spruced up the article pretty nicely. If their individual albums had articles, those articles would probably have notability problems, but the band's article can stand on its own. I also mostly agree with Hullaballoo's comments above about misused procedures during these multiple nominations. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The lack of citations to any secondary sources reflecting this concept gives strong support to the majority's contention that it is original research. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing concepts. The minority of "keep" opinions does not convincingly address this problem. Sandstein 05:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional fictional character[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(1) No such concept exists - it's been invented by Wikipedia • (2) unreferenced for 4 years • (3) contains original research written in essay form • (4) no reliable sources use this term • (5) results of previous delete debate ignored DionysosProteus (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —DionysosProteus (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:WikiProject Theatre and WP:WikiProject Literature informed DionysosProteus - (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searches on google books and google scholar only return results that are founded on the existence of the Wikipedia article. Concept does not exist in any of the sources researched for character article (see sources). DionysosProteus (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems pretty clearly not to be a verfiable concept, Sadads (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pretty clearly original research, and there aren't any sources to be found. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fictional fictional characters are a well-used feature of fiction stories, even if Wikipedia had to provide a name for them. The source references are the stories that these characters occur in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one is denying that characters appear "inside" other works of fiction. But WP:OR prohibits articles from creating concepts, quite unambiguiously. None of the stories, films, etc., nor any commentary on them, uses this term. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to start to invent critical terms. If anyone wishes to do so, he/she needs to write an article about it and get it published in a reliable, third-party source. Then and only then may an article on the subject appear here. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment descriptive terms (as opposed to prescriptive terms) only need to describe the concept, and the title of this article is descriptive, so describes the subject. That's not original research. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. If we were describing the plot of a novel or play, then we'd only need the work in question as a source. This is presented as a critical term and has no existence outside of this article on Wikipedia. It's status as unsourced, original research couldn't be clearer. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The principal objection seems to be the language of the title but this is not addressed by deletion but, instead, by move/merger. The concept of a story within a story is well established in literary theory, being common in works such as the Arabian Nights which has many levels of nesting. As stories involve characters, there is a place for them in this structure. For an example of third-party scholarly discussion of this, please see Genette's Taxonomy of Narrators. This uses language such as intradiegetic and doubly-embedded but choosing between these is just a matter of ordinary editing for clarity, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no objection to the proposal to move the article to a title that accords with current scholarly usage, but the namespace fictional fictional character would need to be deleted, since there's no such thing. A merge into diegesis would be fine, on condition that any material that is imported is referenced with appropriate citations--the other main objection, along with the non-existence of the article's title as a critical term and thus its violation of WP:OR, is that the material has been unreferenced for some time now. If the terms you propose have been coined by one or two scholars and are not in general usage, then that too needs to be indicated. Beyond the list of examples, I don't think that any of the actual material is salvageable, though I'm happy to be proven wrong with citations. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you don't like the title, then rename it. That's not a very good reason for deletion. That fictional characters that are considered fictional by fictional characters in fictional works is clearly evident in many works of fiction. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several reasons for deleting this article, as given above. The fact that "fictional fictional character" is a non-existent term is only one of the reasons. It's original research and unsourced for years. Of course, the latter follows directly from the non-existence of the former. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there are some parallel concepts that are verifiable (story within a story, diegesis, etc.), the nom rightly points out that this whole thing is a heap of OR. Thus there's nothing usable to merge to any other article...you can't ship OR off to some other article under the guise of "merge", that's just spreading unwanted content around. The "keep" !voters above say that the chief problem seems to be the title, but I don't see it that way: I see a whole article making analytical/substantive claims without a single source cited. If there are sources to bring to bear, use them to improve the other related articles instead. No sense trying to save a pile of OR. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page IS linked to from articles: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Fictional_fictional_character . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 10 of those are in article space. Anyway I don't really see what that proves. The fact that it's linked a few times doesn't have any bearing on the article being a pile of OR, or the subject being of questionable verifiability. Anyway number of incoming links has never been a barrier to deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that this article is linked to by others is another reason that it ought to be deleted. The false idea that such a thing as a "fictional fictional character" exists is spreading to other articles. If any of those other articles were actually providing a citation that supported the term, everything would be fine. But they don't. The only reason editors are including this misleading term in their articles, is that they've found it here. It is precisely for that reason that it needs to go. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt's a big mess of OR (its very title is OR) and the more it's linked to by other articles the more misleading it gets. I'm shocked it's been kept this long. Millahnna (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From reading the prior AfD, I would have said Smerge to Story within a story. However, this article is so lacking that there is nothing to keep. The concept (as a "concept") is OR, as is all the content. Yes, there are "fictional fictional" characters. So what? Nothing anywhere hints that this concept exists as a topic anywhere other than Wikipedia. If we're going to keep this article, we might as well start outlining our own stock characters in film as opposed to discussing such characters appearing in scholarly sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons already given.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to Col. Warden: major concept in the analysis of fiction. Actually, I think the nom has in effect withdrawn the nomination, saying it agrees that the subject is notable , but that the title needs to be changed. That discussion can be carried out on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, in no way whatsoever, that would be to misunderstand my remarks completely. Let me be quite clear: in no way does this concept exist in the analysis of literature, theatre, film, etc. Nohwere, nohow. None of the material is supported by a citation--not a singe one. It's all original research. And it's spreading. This is precisely what our guidelines are designed to prevent. At no point did I argue that the subject is notable.--that remains to be proven with citations and given that the article has existed with a request for them for four years, there has been plenty of opportunity for those to be provided. I did a substantial amount of research in this area when I set to cleaning up the character article. It is on that basis that I can say with confidence that the term doesn't exist. I responded to Colonel Warden's comments with strong caveats--namely, that the namespace needs deleting (because there's no such term) and any material on the subject of 'characters who appear inside fictional works of fiction' could only be merged on the condition that appropriate sources were provided. I also expressed scepticism as to the general nature of the usage (it isn't a major concept in literary/theatre/film studies), insisting that the range of use of the terms that Colonel Warden proposed based on his research (intradiegetic and doubly-embedded) would need to be indicated--on the basis of my research in the area, it's pretty limited. --DionysosProteus (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. I'm sure there are sources that talk about "intradiegetic narratives" and such. But you need more than just verify a definition, or verify existence. You need to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a redirect to story within a story is not out of the question, given the content here so far a merge wouldn't be helpful, since this looks to be entirely an example farm, with a bit of OR. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content was copied to Metafiction (history, immediately self-reverted) and Story within a story (history, the majority persists through the current revision) in August 2010. Participants should consider if a redirect is acceptable or if an alternate method from WP:Merge and delete, such as moving to Talk:Story within a story/Fictional fictional character, is desired. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity College and Seminary[edit]

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

Unnotable, unaccredited seminary ran from Robert O'Block's home in Florida (Clearwater now, formally New Port Richey, Florida). Since 1968, O'Block appears to have been running this and several other "schools" and groups accused of being degree mills. For example, he runs groups that sell accreditation and credentials, including the Society for the Cure of Souls, the American Association of Integrative Medicine (AAIM) Accreditation Commission and sells certificates from American Board of Forensic Counselors. A user previously added these groups and others to the article as associations of the seminary. The webpage warns the degrees/credentials are only valid for "religious" use. No surprise, but only heads of other unaccredited schools claim to have degrees from this seminary.

Sole reference is the School Catalog/webpage hosted by the free webhost Angelfire.com (view its history on archive.org). Nothing notable enough for this seminary/home to meet WP:ORG. No sources added in five years. Don't confuse this business with similiar sounding and legitimate schools in New York and Dallas. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of or claim to notability, agree with nom. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Wow, it definitely fails any interpretation of the notability guideline that I've ever seen. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only website mention about this place is that Neal Weaver cites this degree mill as where he received a PhD and Weaver's listed as the faculty member for "Christian Education" of this mill. Weaver is the president of the unaccredited Louisiana Baptist University, which has been accused of being a degree mill as well. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although part of me did wonder if it should remain as a warning that it's an unaccredited institution. Bob talk 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Southern Episcopal Church, the parent institution. We're not here to judge the quality of schools. We're here to provide information. Being accredited or unaccredited is irrelevant, though we state the facts as they are. Probably the merge is the best way to do so in this situation. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even a school. Its so-called degrees are based on "distance learning" (translation: online) and "life experience" (translation: no requirements, just gimme your money), according to its website. It's already mentioned in the Southern Episcopal Church article, but I wouldn't dignify it with a redirect; that could lead to confusion with the REAL Holy Trinity schools (Holy Trinity Seminary in Dallas, Texas and Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, New York) which have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Carlos Antonio Meléndez. Closing something I nominated is IAR, but I think in this case there's agreement that I missed an obvious redirect and "just do the right thing" trumps. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Flores (football manager)[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V -- Can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the existence or notability of this former football coach. Might've PROD'd it, but the complexity of searching on multipart abbreviated names plus the language barrier leaves me greater concern that I've simply missed the appropriate sourcing. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Appears to be Carlos Antonio Meléndez? If so, Merge. Dru of Id (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and Withdraw as nom. Yep, sure looks like he same fellow to me, particularly giving the coaching gig match. You okay with me withdrawing this and just doing the merge direct? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Dru of Id (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll close this myself then (IAR) so that I can do the merge. Thanks, appreciate it. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railpower RP20BD[edit]

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

Article has no sources and no reliable sources could be found in news or Google search, prod has been removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ANI threadWikipedia:Ani#user:Rmzadeh.2C_Vendetta_Proding_against_Wuhwuzdat I also challenged prod on merit.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is now referenced. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourceable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:V. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was looking to snowball the process but sourcing still has issues, 2 references mentioned, 1st only regarding fuel consumption, 2nd is regarding a different locomotive altogether. the 1 sentence claim made in the article is not verifiable. Proper sources need to be added. Rmzadeh ► 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about issues to be covered in an AFD or that would normally be discussed on the talk page of the article? If the only issue is having enough citations, I would think that is a matter of tagging the article or using FACT tags, and raising the issue on the talk page. Not like it is a BLP. The original nomination was about passing WP:V(a valid concern), which seems to be taken care of even if all the claims aren't sourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Sources have been added. Article still lacks substance and facts but it no longer fits deletion policy. Snowball please. Thank you Rmzadeh ► 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railpower RP14BD[edit]

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

Article lacks any sources and no reliable sources could be found in google hits or news, prod removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ANI threadWikipedia:Ani#user:Rmzadeh.2C_Vendetta_Proding_against_Wuhwuzdat I also challenged prod on merit.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was AFD's based on merit and nothing else, users issues have nothing to do with my decision. please refer to above for more detail Rmzadeh ► 20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reference added, was found within 30 seconds on yahoo. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)— 64.53.177.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

i fail to source that "The engines are computer controlled, with the computer stopping and starting engines on a rotating basis, as required to produce the horsepower needed at any given moment." this is the only sentence written in the article and the source clearly does not verify such claim. Rmzadeh ► 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put a FACT tag on that issue. If everything else is met, would seem to be more of a talk page issue than an AFD issue. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your fact tag was removed by the ip, apparently he sees it as sourced. Rmzadeh ► 09:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:V. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAccording to WP:V "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". This article is made up of a mere sentence which claims something that can not be sourced. So i really fail to see how this articles passes WP:V. perhaps if the article had more substance we could say that this one sentence needs sources but the whole article is simply made of this one sentence and there is no verifiable claim in the article whatsoever. I would highly appreciate it if you could explain how you see it as passing WP:V?! Rmzadeh ► 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marketwatch.com, Greenrailnews.com , nsdash9.com , trainweb.org , istockanalyst.com, ecnext.com, bctechnology.com , progressiverailroading.com were interesting reads and only took a minute to find, guessing I could find stronger sources if I wasn't actually busy at work. We aren't talking about contentious issues in a WP:BLP, after all. My concern is that the rational in the original AFD is rather weak, as "lack of google hits" isn't even really a criteria for deletion and is instead listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It is weakly sourced, but exists and it is reasonable to assume that better sources exist but aren't on the first page of a google search done while talking to customers on the phone. And while you can argue every link and nitpick the details, just remember that sometimes it is better to be happy than right. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My friend maybe I have not been able to explain this right, I have no issue with the fact that this locomotive exists! I have an issue with the fact that the page in question has no verifiable content. in my opinion, lacking verifiable content leads to 2 grounds for deletion of WP:V and no content. WP:V does not ask us to verify the title of an article, but the content. I agree the title and the horsepower is verifiable. the rest of this very very short article is in my mind not verifiable. Rational for the AFD was based on the fact that I could not attribute the content of the article to a reliable source. I still fail to do so. Please remember just because the name matches doesn't mean the content matches. I really do appreciate your research in this matter, I don't know the first thing about locomotives but I also know that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and since this article lacks any proven facts, it lacks content, and as such should be deleted or revised to have credible substantial content. Rmzadeh ► 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fact now referenced. 64.53.177.123 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are beating this horse to death, and I leave it to the closing admin to draw their own conclusions. I do feel that you (in good faith) are applying the guidelines too rigidly, and misunderstanding the intent. More experienced editors save their big stick for biographical or more controversial topics. Just remember, it is better to be happy than right. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Rmzadeh requested I comment here because I edited the article, let me just start by saying that WP:V is the wrong argument to be using, since Verifiability has nothing to do with deletion. Verifiability is about confirming that the information in the article is correct via the sourcing given. I don't think you're debating that the current information in the article is incorrect. And, if there is not sourcing for certain information, then it should be requested that it should be obtained, but that doesn't meant the article should be deleted. No, what you want to be arguing by is WP:N, in that if the subject isn't reported on in multiple reliable sources, then it should be deleted. You should not be arguing based on length of the article, since the state of an article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject it is based on.

However, as Dennis Brown showed above, there are numerous sources about the subject and that prove that the subject is notable. There are also likely sources out there that can be used to expand the text of the article, which is the assumption that notability gives. The article currently being a stub is not a reason for it being deleted. Silver seren^C 23:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I should have thought locomotives were notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a source, but references need improving, so tagged as such. ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Withdrawn Sufficient changes have been made to the article, it no longer fits deletion policy. Please snowball. Thank you Rmzadeh ► 17:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GMD GF6C[edit]

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

Article has no sources and no reliable sources could be found in news or Google search, prod has been removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous reference has been re-added. References do not need to be online.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malformed AfD nomination (Missing the template tag, notification to the author of the article, etc.) In Addition Nominator appears to not have done WP:BEFORE. This leads me to think that this nomination is a attack regarding WuhWuzDat. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed template Rmzadeh ► 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:V. Lots of these today. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Request By Nominator Book reference have been added, as such i withdraw my request, please snowball. Thank you Rmzadeh ► 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spelmann[edit]

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

The article failed WP:CSD, and yet there have been no attempts to improve it since. Currently, it conflicts with the following policies: WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:RESUME, and WP:N. It appears self-promotional, and was most likely written by the subject. Efforts have been made to identify news sources: [8]. The guest appearances on TV may be credible claims, but appear temporary and do not seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage. Mephistophelian † 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously deleted because: 'Fails to meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Searches for him on the websites for The Express Newspaper, The London Evening Standard, The Mirror, The Stage...' Mephistophelian † 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails BLP. It is an autobiography. No 3rd party sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a (albeit comprehensive) directory filled with excessive detail about the episodes (WP:CRUFT), which Wikipedia is not. There don't appear to be non-primary reliable sources for any of the information. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Since there are no independent reliable sources I believe to exist for the individual episodes of the show, this list fails WP:EPISODE. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list of episodes of TV show which aired on a national network. Just because the article lists no sources doesn't mean that there aren't any--more like BEFORE would dig them up if the nominator had bothered. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment at the previous AFD, which I still stand by. If this was a regular TV show, then I would see something here which would be substantive, mainly plot/episode information. Being a game show (yes, I know, "educational" but still a game show nonetheless), the format is the same each and every episode. Otherwise, this is basically WP:DIRECTORY territory. –MuZemike 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens; worthwhile content about a notable show.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's years of precedent that episode lists are encyclopedic. That said, some of this stuff should definitely be trimmed (like the list of sleuths and the prize trip location) but the article itself is sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worthreading content for a notable animated televesion show. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your keep, but let's not get confused here: this is the game show we're talking about, not the animated version. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but you may want to remove the sleuth and prize trip location. We got those from tv.com 98.219.238.120 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT mentions that we are not a directory, we're not TV Guide either. This level of exhaustive coverage belongs on a fan wikia site not in an encyclopedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super Super Strong Keep13:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs)
Keep but please read why I HATE these so-called articles. HATE HATE HATE them. But their place on wikipedia is still questionable, and to randomly delete this one would be arbitrary and without a strong basis in policy. Just type in "list of episodes" in the search box. They have made a foothold and a discussion needs to be had about television lists in general. Until then, there is no evidence of clear consensus to exclude them. But I beg and plead TPTB to initiate some serious conversations about the place of such lists, conversations that will lead to some form of generally accepted statement. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:SYN (fans put together the production numbers of the episodes), WP:EPISODE (there is no reliably sourced commentary on the individual episodes apart from what we can say about episodes of the show generally), and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (which this article appears to be, although it does seem to be useful, but that is not an argument to keep). RJaguar3 | u | t 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list of episodes of TV show which aired on a national network. Just because the article lists no sources doesn't mean that there aren't any--more like BEFORE would dig them up if the nominator had bothered. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there are no sources whatsoever for the arrangement of episodes within each season. (I'm fine, for now, with the divisions of episodes into seasons on the basis of the year of copyright indicated in each episode.) The episodes did not air in order, and, generally, production numbers for episodes have not been disclosed. This is entirely original research done by fans of the show (the "methodology" of assigning production numbers appears in the article, for the curious). These results have not been published in a reliable source outside of Wikipedia nor confirmed by someone in the know (whose writings may satisfy WP:SELFPUB). Even if the list were verifiable, it would still likely fail WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We normally make articles like this for reasonably important shows. A RS for the episode list is IMDB, which is highly reliable for this sort of information, and gives exact dates of airing , which could well be added to the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if you are aware, but IMDB's coverage of this show is horribly inaccurate. The episodes were not aired in production order, and I do not know of any corroborating sources for the original airdate. The production numbers floating around (apart from 2 which appear to come from studio master tapes) appear to have spread from some Legends fans who determined that the shows were for a time airing in production order in reruns on Nick and Nick GAS; nowhere has this methodology been verified by a reliable source. The original airdates for some season 2 episodes (such as "The Golden Stallion of Ali Baba", claimed to have aired on May 9, 1994) directly contradict reliable sources stating that the show's 2nd season first aired June 6, 1994 (see article). The airdates also do not really take into account the show's original broadcast time on weekends and the show's move to weekday airings in February 1994, which is well-documented in both TV listings and the Variety article included on the page. As can be verified by TV listings from the LA Times (which I checked for September 1993 to February 1994), no episodes were aired on weekdays (like September 17 (a Friday), September 24 (a Friday), September 29 (a Wednesday), and so on). It is hard to believe that new episodes of a new season would air only once to three times a week instead of five days a week. Until I corrected them, IMDB listed the show's premiere as September 18, 1993, which appears to come from an early fansite making that claim, and contradicts all other reliable sources about the premiere date (EOTVGS, LA Times TV listings, Complete Directory to Prime Time and Cable TV Shows 1946-present). In all, I don't see how IMDB could possibly serve as a good source without corroboration from other reliable sources or primary sources. Without reliable coverage of individual episodes of the shows, I fail to see how this article meets WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So its not perfect, it probably never will be. Lists like this are pretty standard fair for notable tv shows. Szzuk (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hunt Painter[edit]

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

When reviewing this article for DYK, I noticed that it is not clear how this 19th century amateur botanist and pastor is notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The sources cited are primary, self-published and/or passing mentions, and his scientific work seems to be of strictly local significance. I can't immediately find a reliable secondary source discussing this person in any depth. Sandstein 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear if this AfD is based on notability or on the lack of sources describing his life. I'm presuming it is is notability as not having sufficient sources is not usually a reason to delete a notable person's article. (I thought)... and there is an obituary by the Botanical Society of Great Britain. He is of "strictly local significance", but he is mentioned in American Botany books (North American wildland plants: a field guide - Page 466) as soon as you press the books link above. Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This person's Flora of Derbyshire has been cited by many since its publication and a later botanist updated it. This book is still under active review for future publication. This person has a plant named in his honour. The Shropshire Botanical Society newsletter is a reliable source and it invested money in DNA testing to question this person's findings. Museum's across the UK include this person's botanical findings. There are 1,810 hits for him and his book here and notable mentions in Google Scholar. Victuallers (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. This nicely done piece about a 19th Century botanist has been the subject of a Wikipedia Did You Know and it boggles why we would now want to immolate the article on a technicality. Notability guidelines are just that, not some sort of divinely-directed absolute law. Elimination of this information would not in any way improve the encyclopedia project, but would rather diminish it without corresponding benefit. Carrite (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been published on the main page as a DYK? item yet, it has been nominated as such. That's why I reviewed it. Sandstein 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake noted. Still a keeper. Tag for sources, if necessary. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call apparently failing the GNG a "technicality".--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You assume he fails it, I assume he passes. HERE'S ONE BIOGRAPHICAL LINK. Bear in mind this is a dude from the 19th Century and most shit on him is NOT going to be a quick find on Google, in all likelihood. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A server is down so I can't pull this link up, but it's pretty clear that this is a botanist who has made an impact among other botanists, which is what we are looking for with notable scientists:

Search results, herbarium specimens collected by Rev William Hunt ... (help). previous searches. Rev William Hunt Painter. Rev William Hunt Painter ( 16/7/1835 - 12/10/1910). Search results. Search results, herbarium specimens ...

herbariaunited.org/specimensearch/?collector=William... - Cached

Carrite (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information ABOUT PAINTER'S WIFE, same source as the first I mention. Carrite (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's THE NEWSLETTER of the Shropshire Botanical Society. You will notice that there are a substantial number of species named after Painter, who was clearly a pioneer scientist in the botany of this region. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's A PAPER ON THE MOSS EXCHANGE CLUB (1896-1923), which includes material on Painter's biography. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another ISSUE OF THE NEWSLETTER of the Shropshire Botanical Society with multiple incidental mentions of Painter. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... You get the point. This is all from just a relatively few minutes on Google, without touching any scholarly journals of the day and bearing in mind that this is a 19th Century person. If there is a sourcing problem with this article, tag for sources. Keep, improve, move along. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but these are all self-published sources by local societies, and even they mention the subject only in passing. That's not sufficient per WP:GNG. Sandstein 05:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article of notable botanist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the nomination was 4 days after creation when there was evidence of multiple collaborators, source improvement in progress and the article included information on his species discovery which would almost invariably satisfy PROF#1. Given this context, if there was an improvement discussion to be had around notability policy interpretation, this might have been better started on the article talk page with a view to going to AFD rather than the reverse. Fæ (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This was a hasty nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. Some devotees forget that some editors have not got the free time to do instant responses, it seems a little limited to suggest that just because google hasn't digitised it- the source doesn't exist.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: to my mind this is a lovely article - well researched - and an example of what makes Wikipedia good. I am not sure why anyone might want this article deleted as notability seems established via the sources included.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Editors here may be interested in the Arbcom debate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling initiated by the nominator of this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm clearly missing something here, what's the relevance to this?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, as established above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 09:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Labor Day celebrations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Labor Day celebrations (2nd nomination)

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

List not useful as it is terribly incomplete despite having been around for more than 2 years. Per first nomination, at best it would become a linkfarm.

Note - the link to the previous AfD isn't showing up the way I thought it would. It is located here.PK T(alk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 17:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree we can delete this one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I'm a bit confused. I don't see "useful" or "incomplete despite having been around for more than 2 years" as criteria to delete at WP:AFD. I do find those under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Based solely on the fact that the nominator has failed to provide us with a rationale for deletion, I don't have any choice but to say KEEP. I might also add that "We can delete this one" isn't a criteria or lack thereof as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, how about Unencyclopedic? --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is also listed under Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as a non-rationale, but thanks for playing! Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article attempt that never got off the ground and was a pretty bad idea to begin with: all but the tiniest villages do a street fair or something for Labor Day, so if this was complete it would list about 95% of the communities in the country. The notable and verifiable ones belong in the Labor Day article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. I agree that we don't need a list of this magnitude as there are hundreds of thousands of celebrations for Labor Day, but only a select few notable ones that belong in the main article. Tavix | Talk 21:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Flight 7[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Two airplanes bumped into each other. Contrary to what the popular news media would like you to think, this is not an unusual occurence. There were no deaths, culpability is irrelevant, and while some passengers may have been a bit inconvenienced there are no long-term effects of this incident worth mentioning. The incident is listed already at Air France accidents and incidents (scroll down to the very bottom). Fails the enduring notability requirement of WP:EVENT (see section "Inclusion criteria"). Also see WP:AIRCRASH, though it's just an essay. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some prior discussion took place here, here, and here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So it's not unusual for a plane to be spun about while full of passengers? 64.229.100.45 (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? We don't have an article about the time my brother drove a van of college kids off a cliff and survived. But yes, aircraft collisions do happen, and they're not really that newsworthy (or article worthy). The only reason the media is freaking out so much about this one is the dramatic film footage. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm saying the rationale is misleading, since it's not the common occurrance that a van full of kids drives off a cliff. It may be common that there are fender benders, but claiming this is like most of the others is misleading. Whether it is notable enough for an article is separate from the claim that it is common. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But its unusual-ness does not necessarily make it worthy of an article. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It needs to be a notable incident in the long run, as per WP:EVENT. For example, if the FAA creates some new rules or if there's a new law passed as a result of this incident, then it gains notability because of that. The comparison to a "fender-bender" somewhere below is apt -- in this case it was a fender bender where the vehicle that got hit spun out. That inandof itself does not make it notable; the pervasiveness of the incident in sensationalist media reports make it seem notable because, well, sensational news stories sell. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 05:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all information from this article to Air France article. --KzKrann (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Form redirect, not enough info for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents, the relevant WikiProject only considers an incident notable if it involves a major airliner (which this one does) AND any of the following:
- The accident was fatal to humans; or
- The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
- The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

In this case

no lives were lost;
the incident involved damage to both aircraft, but there is no indication that the damage was serious;
it is still too soon to see if any changes in procedures or regulations arise from this incident.

Therefore the incident does not yet merit an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this causes some further incident - i.e. the wing falls of the A380 due to hidden damage from this incident - this lacks complete notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashbag (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 April 2011
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting just crop up, there was an air crash Air France Flight 007 back in 1962 and since that article has met all the criteria for WP:AIRCRASH (versus this current media circus fanfare), we should therefore delete the current newsy page and REDIRECT it the one I just mentioned. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air France accidents and incidents#2010s as there is already a section about this article. Seedp (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Seedp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete per WikiDan. wacky wace 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The CRJ-700 suffered substantial damage, per the Photo on Pprune. Thus the incident meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria 2. I'm keeping an open mind on whether or not the accident is notable enough to sustain an article or not for the moment. One would hope that this AfD get to run the full 7 days, which gives time for further info to come into the public domain that will assist in deciding whether to vote keep or delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Consensus is not about voting although voting is a part of consensus building. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet notability criteria - it's just a "fender bender". I get the impression that the level of media noise about it can be acribed to the fact that one of the planes involved is an A380. Roger (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's because of the A380. It's more likely because the CRJ was spun 90-degrees in the collision. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete F-HPJD already had a ground collision in November 2010 at CDG with an AF A330-200, it stayed out of service during 3 weeks, and it's not mentionned anywhere. The same kind of incident (or even worse) occured in Madrid in 2006 between a Regional ERJ-135 and a Thai Airways B747, the ERJ got repaired and is still flying today, and there's still nothing about it. We're not gonna list every ground collision or runway skid-off. The only reason that makes it so "noisy" in the media is this video footage of the incident, we wouldn't even have heard about it otherwise. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if not, wait a few months and prod it. Nobody will care in September. ---- Selket ^Talk 19:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Articles that have been discussed at AfD are not eligible for PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regardless the article was already previously PRODed and dePRODed, so it's not eligible anyway. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for independent coverage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Slasher-fun and Roger addresses the issues just as well as I can, nothing remarkable or noteworthy about this to justify own page, maybe worth a line or two on the Air France and or A380 pages. Mtking (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Actually, the damage to both aircraft was serious, with both aircraft being pulled from service for what appears to be costly repairs. So I think it meets #2 and possibly #3. That said, however, I don't think it merits it's own article at this time. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it definitely needs to be renamed. The Comair flight was the one that was spun 90 degrees, not the Air France flight. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regardless of if this is deleted or kept, the current name should redirect to Air France Flight 007. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur, note that I've tweaked my standing into DELETE & REDIRECT instead. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody died, no wide-ranging effects or results as yet (and probably unlikely to have), not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This incident has definitely been blown out of proportion by the media, partly due to the appeal of the A380, amongst other factors. I feel that this incident is not worthy of a separate article yet, as preliminary findings from the investigation are still unknown. I can see why some would disagree, but as has been already said, there were no casualties and the incident did not occur during active flight. Despite the media attention, I really don't see how this incident is any different to the one that the Air France A380 aircraft was victim to in November last year, in terms of damage caused and disruption to services. So to sum up, it is not yet known who is culpable and so there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill at this stage, since Wikipedia is not a news website. I doubt that similar types of large aircraft would gather this much of attention. Let's see if the findings from the investigation result in any policy changes for airports worldwide... Ivowilliams (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From this article, it is estimated that 27,000 ramp accidents happen a year. Picking on the very similar incident to this one from the same article, involving a Boeing 777 and an Airbus A320, this incident (or any other ground incidents for that matter) seem to be ignored on Wikipedia articles for the aircraft concerned, and only a mention of the number of incidents (without going into further details), and only serious/hull-loss accidents are mentioned, and have a separate article. Thus, I don't think it a serious enough issue to even deserve a mention in the main A380 article, let alone a separate article in itself. A mention on the Air France article, yes, but the accident is not really due to a design flaw of either the A380 or the CRJ700, so it would be blowing things out of a proprotion. A degree of consistency is needed here, IMO... User talk:Ivowilliams 22:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet any of the aircrash guidelines for inclusion. Yes it made the news, but it's not a significant incident. Happens with other planes all the time, it only got attention due to it being an A380. No merge either. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that's why it got all that attention. The wild whipping about of the CRJ is the most likely reason why it got coverage, not because it was a A380. As for "it happens all the time", does it really happen all the time that planes in ground accidents get flipped around by 90 degrees, while being filled with passengers? 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well as I said here for example, and I'm pretty sure we can find others. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not a significant incident Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to re-creation if the NTSB report results in changes to operating procedures at JFK or the CRJ-700 is declared a write-off. At the moment, the incident just falls below the notability threshold IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheus Global University[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation or organization. (Presumably fake and/or a degree mill, but that's a separate point from its complete lack of notability.) GNews and GNews Archive provide no results for "Morpheus Global University" or variants, and hits for its alleged former name of "South Asia University" are either spurious or have to do with South Asian University, an unrelated and legitimate venture. All in all, I can't find a single reliable source that would confirm even the existence of Morpheus Global University, let alone point to its notability for encyclopedic purposes.

This nomination was prompted by User:Le Deluge's remarks here at Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion; he's done a bit more poking around into the question of the legitimacy and authenticity of the entity (which, again, is a separate question from its complete non-notability). Glenfarclas (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If no reliable sources have been foumd for this, then it is not notable. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non notable institution, without any reliable sources to support notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, especially deserves the axe if it's fake.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A university named after Morpheus? With classes you can sleep through? Sounds like a good deal. I can't find anything either, so it may well be a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The people who want to keep this as a separate article seem to be those with a conflict of interest. Consensus is that any content related to this topic should ba at Strong gravity, and written by people who do not have a personal interest in the matter. Sandstein 05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong gravitational constant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article violates WP:OR and WP:COI. Attempts to redirect the article title to a new article Strong gravity have been disputed by w:User:fedosin, whose own theories are expounded at length in the current state of the article. Some relevant discussions of this topic elsewhere:

I realize that an AfD is not the way to request a simple re-direct, and I am requesting more than a re-direct. I think this article should in fact be deleted; it is full of material that does not belong in Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- Non-notable fringe physics, presented as uncontroversial truth by someone with the worst conflict of interest. This is a clear-cut case. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -- Steve, the text in the article sound so: "The strong gravitational constant, denoted $~\;\;\Gamma$ or ${\displaystyle ~G_{s))$ , is alleged physical constant of strong gravitation"...

From here, Strong gravitational constant is supposed constant, which appears in papers of different authors. Why do you think that the text is presented as uncontroversial truth? Fedosin (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the word "alleged" is in the first sentence, that's good. But "alleged" is only one word. Every other word in the article presents the idea of strong gravity as uncontroversial truth. The only controversies discussed are controversies within the theory, e.g. what is the numerical value of the constant. This is a minor point, because in theory, bias can be removed by rewriting instead of deleting. The real problem is that this is non-notable fringe physics. --Steve (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply About uncontroversial truth. There is another phrase: "It is assumed, that in contrast to the usual force of gravity, at the level of elementary particles acts strong gravity". Then there are some attempts to define or assess the value of Strong gravitational constant. It is the truth only that till now we have no generally accepted the numerical value of the constant. I think the controversy come from a lack of our knowledge. Fedosin (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OR and WP:COI are not by themselves grounds for deletion. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH can of course support a recommendation for deletion if the whole article is solely OR, and it is clearly not possible to solve the issues by the normal Wikipedia process. Is the claim that this is the case here? Based on the Google scholar hits, the topic appears to be notable enough. --Lambiam 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The part of WP:OR relevant to this article, which is an incomprehensible jungle of equations sourced to physics research by the article's creator, is ""Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Could an article be written about this material? An article has been written about this material, and you can find that article at Strong gravity, to which this article title should re-direct. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Reply. At the moment the article Strong gravity is a stub because it contained only part of history of development of idea of gravitation at particle level. Can any educated person, with access to the sources in Strong gravity but without special knowledge, be able to verify what is now means about strong gravity and strong gravitational constant? Of course not. The idea of redirection was already discussed and is not good, see examples with gravitation and gravitational constant, and with Fermi's interaction and Fermi constant. Redirection in last case take place because of absence of article Fermi constant only. May be you see in the article jungle of equations. Of course mathematical equations are second and special symbolic language and you do not need to know it. But this language is very punctual and useful.Fedosin (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply To continue the analogy, the Luminiferous aether theory had constants associated with it---the aether density, aether Young's modulus, etc---but there are no articles about those constants. The article on N-rays doesn't link to a separate article about the N-ray mass. The article on the Plum pudding model does not link to an article about the plum pudding binding energy. And so on. Bm gub2 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (formerly bm_gub).[reply]
  - Reply I suppose these articles my be written, but as you see here too many critical users who want delete any articles.Fedosin (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notable aspect of strong gravity is that it was a topic of interest in the misty early days of QCD and/or the later, decaying days of old-style grand unification. I think we have that under control at strong gravity. This article is User:Fedosin's POV fork. The purported "constant" is something that barely appears, if at all, in mainstream theory papers which are focused on confinement. (The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the WP:FRINGE references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses.) To support this constant, Fedosin is citing his own pet theory (thus the COI and OR), which is one of a dozen or so WP:FRINGE theories (thus NN and RS) which Fedosin is trying to synthesize (OR) into something that sounds like "hey, here's the glorious theory of strong gravity which is really quite well-worked-out, consistent, and important, and which I will later tie in with my pet Fractal cosmology theory that was deleted before." I have followed all of the references carefully (see the talk page), and there's nothing here that passes WP:FRINGE scrutiny (except the bit that I forked to strong gravity). Bm gub (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I do not agree. The article not about strong gravity, it is more about strong gravitational constant. What does mean: This article is User:Fedosin's POV fork? In the article arranged only data which are in scientific papers about strong gravitational constatnt. It is not my imagination it is fact. Also I do not agree when you say that: “The "constant" is, on the other hand, the main feature---perhaps the only feature---of all of the WP:FRINGE references, where they "compute" it via various mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses”. As you see the constant is in references:

Sivaram, C. and Sinha, K.P. Strong gravity, black holes, and hadrons. Physical Review D, 1977, Vol. 16, Issue 6, P. 1975-1978.
Salam A. and Sivaram C. Strong Gravity Approach to QCD and Confinement. Mod. Phys. Lett., 1993, v. A8(4), 321–326.
Strong Interactions, Gravitation and Cosmology. Abdus Salam Publ. in: NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, June16-July 6, 1972 ; in: High Energy Astrophysics and its Relation to Elementary Particle Physics, 441-452 MIT Press, Cambridge (1974).
K. Tennakone. Electron, muon, proton, and strong gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 1974, Volume 10, Issue 6, P.1722–1725.
Stanislav Fisenko & Igor Fisenko. The Conception of Thermonuclear Reactor on the Principle of Gravitational Confinement of Dense High-temperature Plasma. Applied Physics Research, November 2010, Vol. 2, No. 2, P. 71 -79.
S. I. Fisenko, M. M. Beilinson and B. G. Umanov. Some notes on the concept of “strong” gravitation and possibilities of its experimental investigation. Physics Letters A, Volume 148, Issues 8-9, 3 September 1990, Pages 405-407.

By your own words this authors just not fringe and so references to their papers are suitable. Your words about “mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses” mostly addressed to my data in the article and are wrong. Reference to Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was done only in order to explain how is it possible to think about strong gravity in simple and natural way. I may be give more information about my own vision and applications of strong gravitational constant. But it was only because I well know the question in my own direction of investigation. I am sure other authors can add their thoughts and ideas about their applications of strong gravitational constant, or may be it could be done other users better then me.Fedosin (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Fedosin (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork; generally per Bm gub. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. During the discussion was a question to Bm gub: have you refeences where is proved that idea of Strong gravitational constant is fringe? There were other questions for him : Can you give evidence that Fedosin, Oldershaw, Stone, Perng, and Dufour are the fringe authors? Have you references where it is proved ? Up to now we have not any references about. So it is only personal position of Bm gub, no more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedosin (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 April 2011

Comment the article Strong gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was copied from Strong gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so a simple delete will not suffice, if this is deleted, then the article history for strong gravity needs to be severed from this article and attached to that one from the version where it was copied. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know if it helps, but the present content of strong gravity has a clean history starting at [9]; I copied it there from content suggested by this edit: [10]. Bm gub (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "strong gravitational constant" is simply deleted, then "strong gravity" will be missing the edit history of everything up to the point you copied it from. A history merge, or a redirect from this page name needs to be implemented. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not our job to prove that this theory is fringe. It is the editor's job to prove that it isn't. He's failed. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Do you speak about strong gravity or about strong gravitational constant? If you speak about strong gravity then according to efforts of Bm gub was proved that this theory is (possibly) non-mainstream and not fringe (see discussion). On the other hand strong gravitational constant is article supporting the article strong gravity. Fedosin (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Fedosin (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Fedosin (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are notable fringe theories. And the line between fringe and non-fringe can be blurry (and this is an example where exactly where it falls might even be arguable). But at the end of the day, there's no notability to the claims, merely the ideas of a single author. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rklawton says it for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral - I think the nomination is slightly misstated firstly WP:OR doesn't come into it, as the Material is not being published here in the first instance - It has all been reliably published in journals and books and the content is properly sourced to them. There is a WP:COI but that in its self is not grounds for deletion. The biggest questions should be can this theory be independently verified, and can we represent it neutrally as a notable fringe theory? To answer, we need reliable sources by third parties discussing the material at hand, whilst these do not exist in English (or romanised Russian) it is clear that all this material was all initially printed in cyrillic Russian and the possibility exists that any reliable third party sources may also exist in this form. I would ask the article writer to provide any sources (in any language) that show his material has been subject of Peer Review or general independent coverage within or without the scientific community. Failing that my vote would be a delete. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The book: Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia: ot preonov do metagalaktik, Perm, (1999-06-09) 544 pp. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1 was discussed at Perm state university and at Perm state technical university. There are two official reviews of Prof. Dr. A.I. Saralov to the book, and report of Rector of Perm state technical university V.Yu. Petrov to the book, which help for participation of the book in Perm regional competition of scientific works (papers) in 1999 and 2003. The book: Fedosin S.G. Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost’ materii. – Perm, 2009, 844 pages, Tabl. 21, Pic. 41, Ref. 289. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. (in Russian) has two official reviews: from Docent Dr. V.M. Deev of Perm state pedagogical university and from Docent Dr. I.L. Volhin of Perm state university. The theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was partly developed in the book: Fedosin S.G. Osnovy sinkretiki: filosofiia nositeleĭ. – Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2003, 464 pages. ISBN 5-354-00375-X. in Russian. This book has three official reviews: of Prof. Dr. V.N. Zheleznuak, of Prof. Dr. O.A. Barg, and Docent Dr. A.L. Zhulanov. The book: Fedosin S.G. Sovremennye problemy fiziki: v poiskakh novykh printsipov. Moskva: Editorial URSS, 2002, 192 pages. ISBN 5-8360-0435-8 contains articles: Equations of gravitational field in theory of relativity; Moment of momentum and radius of proton; Gravitation and black holes in special relativity. The book has review of Dr. A. S. Kim. Fedosin (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does this prove? Google Scholar shows that the work of S G Fedosin has cites of 5, 5, 1, 1, of which 8 are self-citations, showing that it has had little impact on the scientific community. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I hope search in Russian domain give more results.Fedosin (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GS cites Russian sources. Do the search yourself and tell us what you get. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Scholar shows 16, 5, 1, 1 cites for СГ Федосин but 10 of those 16 are other works by СГ Федосин Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Introduction of a strong gravitational constant in the quantum area in itself does not result in something essential. However, acknowledgement of this fact is a base for further development of the concept of strong gravitational interaction as a gravitational interaction on quantum level. In my view this justifies keeping the article Strong gravitational constant. I have provided more comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant#Modern_strong_gravity --Sfisenko (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sfisenko is a single-purpose account which shares a name with one of the authors cited in the article. That's funny, the last time I participated in a Fedosin related AfD [11], two of the cited fringe authors just so happened to log in there too. Fedosin, please read Wikipedia's policies on canvassing and meatpuppets. Bm gub (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As I already explained at Noticeboard, there were some e-mails with invitations to discuss the article. Fisenko was one who received such e-mail and he was ready to prepare his comment to the end of the week. From this I conclude that Sfisenko is real account of Stanislav Fisenko. Fedosin (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge to Strong gravity (!vote revised 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC) )—I have no intrinsic problem with the existence of an article on this topic, as long as the length and content of the article are sufficient to justify existence as a complete article rather than a section in the Strong gravity article. The key issue here is not the existence of the article, but the content. If there has been inappropriate interference with editing of the article content in line with Wikipedia policy, that is a problem that needs to be taken up elsewhere. It does sound like there is the potential for a conflict of interest issue here, but I won't weigh in deeper than just making that observation. Keep the article and get it into shape rather than deleting it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I don't think there's anything that's possible to get into shape. The only people on Earth who are interested in this purported "constant" are the fringe authors who think that they've calculated it and thereby solved the Grand Unification problem. Fisenko's objection on this point was quite correct; when I tried to remove the unreliable sources, the little I had left was no longer an article about the "strong gravitational constant" at all. At the moment, I think no such article is possible. Bm gub (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The way that someone would "get the article into shape" is by reading reliable, published secondary sources on the topic of this article. There is none. The closest anyone has come to finding any "secondary source", is Russian-language reviews of Fedosin's book. Therefore you are asking the impossible. Also, I don't see how you separate "existence" and "content". If every single sentence in an article ought to be deleted, then the whole article ought to be deleted. This is not a debate about creation protection: Someone else can still write an article with this title from scratch. :-) --Steve (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment — Let's assume for a moment that strong gravity exists as a force. Therefore, it follows that a formulaic representation of strong gravity as a force exists. At present, there is no formulaic representation of the strong gravity force in the article on the topic. If this is due to there being no supporting material which posits in a reliable manner that formulaic representation, then all discussion of the strong gravitational constant is moot because it must necessarily rely upon that representation and the article on the constant should be deleted. If, however, there has been a reliably related formulaic representation, then the question becomes one of whether there is as part of that representation a constant unique to strong gravity, then whether there is sufficient information reliably related which supports the composition of verifiable content, then whether there is sufficient verifiable content to support a stand alone article or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Its existence is real. It is a serious and vital grand unified fundamental physical constant. If it is not existing- 'existence of massive atom' or ' 'existence of massive elementary particle' is doubtful and meaningless. Please note that till today no fundamental theory makes a comment on the 'origin of mass' of atoms and elementary particles. Here the very important question to be answered is – which is more fundamental either $G$ $G$ or ${\displaystyle G_{s))$ ${\displaystyle G_{s))$ ? It is proposed that both can be considered as the 'head' and 'tail' of matter coin. It can also be suggested that classical $G$ $G$ is a consequence of the existence of atomic ${\displaystyle G_{s))$ ${\displaystyle G_{s))$ . It is known that there is a difference in between 'absolute findings' and 'absolute measurements'. Absolute findings can be understood where as 'absolute measurements' can not be made by nuclear experiments which are being conducted under the sky of universal gravity with 'unknown' origin of elementary particles mass. I humbly request the science community to kindly look into this issue.User:seshavatharam.uvs
- Comment -- User:seshavatharam.uvs is presumably UVS Seshavatharam, someone who is doing research in this field, and whose paper is cited in the article. Like Sfisenko above, they were presumably canvassed by Fedosin by email. Everyone is welcome to fairly consider seshavatharam.uvs's opinion, but we should be aware of this context. --Steve (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- User:seshavatharam.uvs , User:Sfisenko , User:Fedosin , User:Robert a stone jr -- they are authors of papers which are referenced in the article. Their opinion is important for that their ideas was not distorted by some users which discussing the article. Fedosin (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article loses a great deal of credibility with a lengthy polemic section entitled "Its existence is true and real". Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do have an article Strong gravity, which gives an account of early work on the idea. At the moment, Strong gravitational constant recounts some related modern work. One key question is whether there exist any respectably published secondary sources that review or analyze or evaluate the research papers of Fedosin, Fisenko, Seshavatharam, or Robert A Stone. A second key question is whether there exists so much notable material about this work that it needs its own article separate from Strong gravity. If this material should be covered in Wikipedia, I hope that experienced Wikipedians and physicists will help the authors get it into shape as a respectably worded encyclopedia article. betsythedevine (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup per Betsy and joshuaZ. Without addressing the question of notability (or the difference b/t fringe and other science), there is not currently enough published work on the topic to merit a separate article. –SJ + 04:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. I'm not taking into account the two first "delete" opinions, as they were written prior to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's complete rewrite. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan Ben Williams[edit]

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

Difficult one. I think that might fails our notability guidelines and minimum requirement for sourcing. IQinn (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this can be considered notable. IJA (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RBW is a fictional character. Our article and our scholarly sources say RBW is a fictional character. There may be some blogs or commentators from the fringe of the MSM who have asserted hoaxsters are attempting to fool the public into thinking RBW is a real individual. But WP:HOAX bans creating articles that are hoaxes. You misunderstand the policy if you think it bans writing articles that are about notable hoaxes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. It would be better if we had an article to redirect this to, but I'm going to rewrite the stub instead. Seems to be a phony name used for various al-Qaeda-oid propaganda moments aimed at Islamic comics fans.[12] You couldn't make this stuff up (well, I couldn't).Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said that might be a difficult one. Thanks for improving the article but Michelle Malkin and a Rachel Maddow Show with Keith Olbermann hardly pass WP:RS. So does this now pass WP:GNG? IQinn (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's notable and should be expanded. memri is a good source on islamist terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to establish notability it needs to pass our notability guidelines as WP:GNG what it does not do in the current form. IQinn (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — disinformation and dubious, unreliable sources. Mephistophelian (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz mentioned it would be better to have somewhere to redirect to. There was a lot of coverage by a large number of blogs at the moment and for about a year afterwards. Content is not much, and while it was suggested that he might have been a fake person, that didn't get much following either. I agree that these sources fall short of WP:RS individually, but I do think that in tandem they show it to be notable enough for mention without failing WP:BLP1E (that is, in case the subject is a living person), and also without absolute need for the subject to produce more content. Here is a pack of references, it's not everything that will come up, but they do provide an average of the available material and of its reliability: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=35207 11] 12 - frankie^MR (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem "by a large number of blogs". That is not enough. We need WP:RS and the links that you have provided are horrible example of sources that are NOT WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They verify the subject and that is one thing. It didn't happen as hard as to reach more main than Olbermann, but the thing to note is that every report is different, and I only linked some of them, no need to place more when they all say the same thing, and that difference I will argue is kind of notable. Then the first source is cited by several other papers discussing the middle east (that's how I came to find it). And then the subject is not only itself, but it is part of larger one, on terrorism, of war against terror, on fear propaganda, you name it. I think it should go to Al-Qaeda, but I'm no expert so maybe there's a better one - frankie^MR (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your reply. I get your point and i agree that it has "a kind of notability" but i think it should at least meed our minimum requirements for an own article and that is WP:GNG. I still doubt that the provided sources add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG. How about we move and redirect it to Al-Qaeda#Internet? IQinn (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's a very good target. There were several comments about the whole thing being targeted to comic fans, and that it was done by a media group, so Internet is appropriate - frankie^MR (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Scholarly articles have been written about this fictional character. I found an additional one with trivial effort. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to al-Qaeda#Internet, per Iqinn and Patitomr. There are plainly sources available that verify and discuss the character of "Rakan Ben Williams," but I think that any information that can be amassed about Williams can easily be covered in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tense-aspect-mood[edit]

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

Body of article is a list of languages, with some commentary on each. It is impractical to have a discussion of every language in the world on this page. It is not certain whether "tense-aspect-mood" is an established concept in the study of grammar. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. The article is well-sourced, with 28 references. The separate articles on tense, aspect, and mood are not by themselves sufficient in that they don't cover the interactions among the three concepts (except slightly in passing).

As for the impracticality of discussing every language in the world, the same could be said for a lot of other linguistics articles. The value in discussing how some languages handle tense-aspect-mood (or some other feature of language) is obvious to me: Doing so illustrates the variety of possibilities. Beyond a certain point, which I think has not been reached in this article, there would be diminishing returns in adding more examples, so there is no need to try to cover every language.

As for whether tense-aspect-mood is an established concept, here are some quotes from titles of articles in the reference list:

"Tense, Aspect, and Modality"

"Tense, Mood and Aspect"

"Tense, Aspect and Mood"

"Tense/Mood/Aspect"

"the Tense-Mood-Aspect System"

"Tense-Mood-Aspect Systems"

Clearly from this, tense, aspect, and mood are often analyzed as a unit, and that unit is an established concept Duoduoduo (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should of course not be a list of languages, though it will need examples. The term is common in the lit, as is the abbreviation TAM, because in many if not most languages, tense, aspect, and mood are conflated, so that the individual terms are often inadequate. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the choice of title seems a bit weird (I would have chosen Tense, aspect and mood) but this definitely is an established linguistic concept. - filelakeshoe ^{(SAVE WIKIPEDIA)} 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article which covered interaction among these could be useful. One problem I have with the article is that the section on English overlaps a lot with English modal verb and English verbs (and English grammar as well) and thus there are more places between these articles where problematic material can creep in. I feel it should focus on grammatical structures which express several of tense, aspect and mood rather than trying to give an overview of the grammar.

Another difficulty I have is with terminology. I saw "tense, aspect and mood" as indexes to give the appropriate form of a verb lexeme. This is based on Latin grammar (Latin_conjugation), which is where these words come from and what they were originally used for. (Aspect was a category of tenses, with three tenses in each of two aspects. There were also voice, person and number.) Conflation of structure and meaning is a problem which seems to be common in the study of grammar. What we need is precise semantic vocabulary (perhaps "time" instead "tense") but this might not be possible. Perhaps a note should be put in the article to say that "tense", "aspect" and "mood" are being used semantically. I am also worried about the use of phrases like "modality of permission", and am not sure if there really is such a thing. The concept of modality may be being used as a bag for a jumble of semantic concepts. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some examples to the lede. As far as I noticed, the sections of the article on specific languages focus on the interaction of tense, aspect, and mood (or the absence of interaction if that is a distinguishing feature of the language -- that too is one way that some languages handle TAM).

The article tense (grammar) correctly states: "Tense is a grammatical category that locates a situation in time, that indicates when the situation takes place." This is standard in linguistics, even though teaching grammars of some languages use the term in a looser sense. Likewise, aspect and mood are being used in the standard linguistic way -- see those articles. I don't see the point in putting in something to say that these terms are being used in the linguistically correct way, especially since the lede explicitly defines them. And no, the term "modality" is not being used as a bag for a jumble of concepts; it's being used as linguists use it -- see the article linguistic modality, which defines it as "According to [a set of rules, wishes, beliefs,...] it is [necessary, possible] that [the main proposition] is the case." So the modality of permission refers to clauses such as "You may go [in accordance with the speaker's rules or wishes]". Take a look at the references [1] and [7], whose titles contain the word "modality." Note that mood and modality refer to the same kinds of information being conveyed: for mood, the information is conveyed morphologically, while modality refers to the information being conveyed morphologically or otherwise. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the examples are good. To demonstrate the meaning of "tense" as used in the article, consider this sentence from the lede: "Often any two of tense, aspect, and mood (or all three) may be conveyed by a single grammatical construction". It is meaning which is being conveyed by the grammatical construction, so tense, aspect and mood are being treated as categories of meaning. However, depending on the language, the grammatical construction in question may be labelled as a particular "tense", "aspect" or "mood". For example, in English the present tense (grammatical meaning) construction "He does not run every day" denotes a habitual aspect (semantic meaning). The present tense (grammatical meaning) construction "We are going tomorrow" denotes future tense (semantic meaning). Count Truthstein (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that terminology used within a language to describe itself, like you describe with the forms in Latin grammar, is pretty arbitrary and meaningless. This article shouldn't talk about what we think a tense is in English, for example the fallacy that the concept of a "future tense" exists, when the formation used most commonly to talk about the future is the one we call the "present continuous". No, this should be written solely from a language-neutral linguistic perspective, not making correlations to English or Latin or any "standard" as we would have done in the 16th century. - filelake shoe 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am all in favour of articles that address issues in a connected way, rather than pretending that (say) tense, aspect, and mood can be managed each in isolation. Years ago I contributed to Grammatical aspect (if I have the name right; cf. links above); and I may do so again. I wish editors well with the present article. I might drop in and see how things are progressing, if I can find the time. Noetica^Tea? 23:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. TAM certainly is "an established concept in the study of grammar", as the first ten cited references clearly attest. The state of the article just prior to nomination showed that the topic is notable and verifiable, sources are available, and no original research is necessary to create a solid encyclopedic article. While it is true that the article cannot and should not try to describe the TAM system of every world language, I don't think there is an attempt to do that. Instead, there are examples of analyses of TAM. If the examples seem inapt, they might be cleaned up, reduced, or changed, but there is no cause for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interconnectedness of these three category domains is a legitimate topic even if each of the three has its own article. Discussion of this interconnectedness is a very well-established topic in research. Content as it stands is decent enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Primea[edit]

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

Adevertisement Oddbodz (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable development. -- Selket ^Talk 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPAM and advertisement. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20071021-95837/Discovery_chain_raising_up_to_P5B_for_expansion. Article so tagged. Goodvac (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sort of between keep and no consensus here, but it seems like consensus is leaning toward Herman meeting GNG . /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur S. Herman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found (only coverage is as a line in a statistical database). No results from Google Books or Google News archive, only 9 from regular Google. Note: I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many similar articles that should IMO also be deleted (and there are many hed coaches who are notable and do deserve an article). I am not making this a mass nomination because often for some of the people included, some other, unexpected source of notability is found. Each coach should be considered separately, no matter how tedious this may be. Fram (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep head college football coaches are almost always considered notable, and it seems that every time one is deleted in AFD, later it is "resurrected" when additional online and/or offline sources are found. This particular article is less than a few hours old. Further, WP:NSPORTS is inclusionary and not exclusionary. A better guideline would be WP:GNG which many would argue the article has already met through verification of two separate reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Yep: that is correct.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Verification isn't all that is needed to meet GNG, never mind that only one of the sources seem to work (cfreference didn't work at the time of nomination, and it doesn't work now: did it work at the time of creation of the article?). Apart from that, I have checked a number of old AfD's for head coaches, and it has become obvious that after three years, a few are truly resurrected, a few are recreated with one local newspaper added, and a few are redirects, so certainly not "every time". Anyway, instead of making assertions, perhaps you can provide us with sources establishing notability, i.e. sources which "address the subject directly in detail" (from the GNG), not one source which has one single statistical line and zero biographical info. As for the article being only a few hours old: should I have nominated something like Dwight Watson (American football) instead, which is three months old and fairly identical to the article under discussion? These articles don't magically get expanded soon after creation, if no sources are available. Fram (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we had ten divisions of men like Cbl62, all these coaching stubs would indeed be expanded. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made me blush. Thanks for the kind words. Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you got the reference. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep we followed through on providing the sources, and you followed through on your threat Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Watson (American football). It's not a battleground here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a threat, the AfD of that article was a reaction on the sourcing done at that article, which made it painfully obvious that he isn't notable at all. It's not my fault that you first create articles on non-notable persons, and then spend more time on the same article without finding any further indication of notability... Fram (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wohoo - Then lets add every single head college football coach in here as per Paulmcdonald. Of course your statement lacks any kind of solid argument, and is biased. Wikipedia is not a directory, and if he has a notable act outside of the college (training city's homeless/poor kids or teenagers, developing some act of endorse or activitionism or charitable act), otherwise he is NON notable, and the article should be Deleted, or else he fails WP:GNG, he also fails WP:1EVENT] and the specific notability guideline (in this case WP:ATHLETE), even though the article can be well sourced, it is not a factor to maintain and keep an article in wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why would working with poor kids in Lancester or doing charity in the area be more notably necessarily than playing/coaching football at Franklin & Marshall? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "1 event" issue raised above is not applicable: Even when the article started, there were 8 games that made up the single season, not a single event. Now we have more seasons as a player and more events in the life of the individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One lackluster season at a small school nearly a century ago indicates very little in the way of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Herman's record and the amount of time since he last coached are irrelevant to his notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Won't offer an opinion on keeping or deleting the article, but I happened to click on it at AFD and noticed a block of four sentences identical to one source, which I've removed. I implore whomever added that to be more careful in the future in this regard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was me and it was inadvertent. Thanks for catching it. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can understand why someone might have nominated this in its previous stub form. The stub has now been substantially expanded, and several newspaper stories focusing on Herman have been added to the article. I invite those voting "Delete" to give it a fresh look with an open mind. Nowadays, nobody outside of Lancaster cares about F&M football, but back in the 1910s, Franklin & Marshall played at the highest level, and their games were covered extensively in the national media including the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other national papers. Herman was a major star for F&M in both baseball and football and was one of the inaugural inductees in the F&M Athletic Hall of Fame when it was created in 1969. He also played two years of professional baseball in the Blue Ridge League and received considerable press for his baseball prowess. His football coaching career ended prematurely when he was drafted into the Army during WWI. When he was taken away from F&M by the draft, the story was covered in newspapers across the country. Cbl62 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if F&M was notable, it does not necessarily mean Sherman as an individual is notable for playing on their team, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald and Cbl62's arguments and general WikiProject College football guidelines on head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines are not generally accepted, contrary to the WP:NSPORTS guideline. I still don't see him meeting that guideline. The article is nicely expanded, with an impressive amount of sources, only a few of those though are about him, the others mention him in a lineup or some such. The Adams County News article[13] is more about him, but is a ourely local source. The same goes for the Gettysburg sources. He palyed as a professional, but only in the minor league. He is inducted in a hall of fame, but that's the one from his former school, not one that meets WP:NSPORTS#College athletes either. Please indicate which aspect of his career meets any of the criteria of WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram -- It is well-established that the WP:NSPORTS guideline is inclusionary, not exclusionary. A college athlete who satisfies WP:GNG based on having been the subject of non-trivial news coverage qualifies. This is particularly so for college football players before the 1920s, because there was no NFL at that time. College football played by the major teams like F&M was the highest level of the sport in this era. Here, and despite the difficulty in accessing many of the sources from this era, we have already found stories that are focused on Herman in the Adams County News (fn. 10), The Star and Sentinel (fn. 12), The Indianapolis Star (fn. 18), and The Evening Independent (fn. 19). This is pretty solid evidence under WP:GNG, and given the fact that the article was only created today, no reason to AfD this one. Cbl62 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is well-established that the WP:NSPORTS guideline is inclusionary, not exclusionary." Not really well established, people disagree all the time over this. It is clear that he has no claim to notability outside his sporting career (player or coach). If he then fails to meet WP:NSPORTS, it becomes a problem to keep the article anyway, in my view. As for college football being the highest level of the sport at the time: as far as I can tell, they only played against other teams from the same state. If that is correct, it becomes hard to accept this as the "highest level of the sport", as this would mean that there were proabably a few hundred teams competing at that same level at that time in the States. Comparing this with "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." (which is what NSPORTS requests) is not really correct. Fram (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree over whether it's established or not. But even if meeting WP:NSPORTS was required, Herman passes. WP:NSPORTS states, "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Here, and as outlined above, Herman has been the subject of non-trivial media coverage. Also, it's not correct that F&M was a small local program. During the 1910s, F&M was playing the top Eastern teams including Rutgers, Cornell, Penn, Temple, Syracuse, Galludet, Johns Hopkins, the Carlisle Indian School, and Lafayette. F&M was truly one of the big-time programs at the time. Cbl62 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: in 1913-16, F&M played each season against a number of PA teams (7or 8 usually), and each year 1 (one) non-PA team. In 1917, when he was coach, they only played PA teams. Still seems rather state-based to me. Fram (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been focusing on early college football history for quite some time, and I can assure you that many of F&M's opponents were major programs at the time. Penn won 7 national championship in this era. Cornell was the national champion in 1915. Carlisle Indian School featured Jim Thorpe and was coached by Pop Warner. But even if you don't agree with that, the fact remains that Herman has received non-trivial media coverage in newspapers at least in Pennsylania, Ohio, and Indiana. Cbl62 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Penn won 7 national championship in this era." Don't you mean two instead of seven, 1911 and 1912? Pittsburgh won four titles in this decade, and considering that F&M didn't even compete against Pittsburgh in this decade (despite being from the same state even), one can wonder if F&M really played at the highest level, whatever this "highest level" meant at that time (not what NSPORTS uses as its definition of highest level, in my opinion). Fram (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this is all kind of beside the point, but I did mean seven. Penn has been credited with 7 NCs from 1894 to 1924. See Penn NCs. I never said Penn had 7 NCs in a decade; I used term "era" referring to the early years of college football. As for the lack of direct matches with Pitt, I don't know why the two schools didn't play each other, but what's interesting is that, when you compare the schedule for Pitt (which you agree is the highest level of football in the 1910s) with the F&M schedule in the 1910s, you find that the two schools regularly played against many of the same opponents (Dickinson, Carlise, Penn, Lehigh). Even though they didn't play face-to-face, they were playing at the same level of competition. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, according to the College Football Data Warehouse, which is the source you (plural) for all these articles, Penn has only won 2 championships in this era (both in this decade):[14]. Of course, it seems that no one really agrees if there was a "highest level" and what it was, since there are sometimes 5 "national champions" in one year. Your claim "(which you agree is the highest level of football in the 1910s)" is incorrect and I don't see how you can read that from "one can wonder if F&M really played at the highest level, whatever this "highest level" meant at that time (not what NSPORTS uses as its definition of highest level, in my opinion)." If you organise enough competitions, with enough champions, then everyone and everything plays at the "highest level" (a bit like what is happening with boxing or MMA), making the term for such sports meaningless and clearly not what is intended by that term in our guideline. Fram (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also that this is by far the highest level of the sport. There was some professional football at the time, but the NFL didn't form until 1920 and it wasn't even a "major league" until the 1960s or 1970s depending on who you ask.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I cannot find anything in WP:GNG or WP:N that states that if a college football team only plays teams in its state that it isn't notable. That matter is completely irrelevant, especially with the coverage of the team found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That a team only and mostly plays in its own state is not "irrelevant" when people are proclaiming that the team is playing at "the highest level of the sport". The "highest level" comes from the nutshell of WP:NSPORTS: "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The highest level is clearly defined as "a major international competition", while this is a not even the national competition but a regional (mostly statebased) one, where at least one of the best teams of the state at the time (Pittsburgh being four times national champion in the decade) didn't even compete against F&M. You can continue claiming that he played and coached at the highest level of the sport, but if you take the definition of this as given in NSPORTS, which is the relevant guideline on Wikipedia, you are clearly wrong. Fram (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in the WP:NSPORTS criteria that covers coaches in American football and playing for the Blue Ridge League is not inherently notable per WP:MLB/N, so that argument is straight out the door. As for the WP:GNG, there is routine, local coverage of his firing, game stats in the Boston Globe and NY Times. There are (supposedly, as the archives are not online) two references to Herman being drafted for WWI service, but for the time period should be pretty run-of-the-mill too. Every local athlete in their mid-20's probably got a "our boy's been called up" blurb in the local papers. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your assessment, obviously, but just a small correction: WP:NSPORTS#Amateur sports persons does cover college coaches in American football: "College athletes and coaches are notable if [...]" Fram (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nod, I saw that but what I mean is that they don't attain automatic article-worthiness simply by being a head coach. As opposed to the "Have appeared in at least one game..." criteria found elsewhere in the notability article for players. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the general notability guideline. Having met WP:GNG, not meeting WP:NSPORTS is not an issue. For one thing, WP:NSPORTS itself repeats the general notability guidelines: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]." Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me like he meets GNG, seems to be more than trivial coverage about him. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Franklin & Marshall College The subject fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. Significant "means that sources address the subject directly in detail", not that there are a large number of trivial sources. The two New York Times references and the Reading Eagle references are WP:ROUTINE game coverage that listed Herman in the starting lineup or mentions that he scored in a single sentence as part of routine game coverage. This does not establish notability. The following sentences serve to establish his school's notability, but not Herman's:
In 1914, the Franklin & Marshall football team, with Herman playing halfback, compiled a 6–2 record and defeated Penn, at the time considered one of the "Big Four" of college football,[n 1] by a score of 10–0.[6][7] In 1915, the team again compiled a 6–2 record and outscored opponents by cumulative score of 188 to 43.[8] With Herman playing fullback, Franklin & Marshall lost to Penn by a score of 10–6 in 1915, but the Boston Globe praised the effort of the Franklin & Marshall squad: "The University of Pennsylvania football team in its third game of the season beat Franklin and Marshall today, 10 to 6, in one of the best battles seen here in years. Much praise is due the visitors from Lancaster, for during the entire game they fought with a snap and vim that at times had the Red and Blue eleven bewildered."[9]

Playing minor league baseball as he did is not notable (WP:WPBB/N). Being a college coach does not guarantee notability. Per WP:NSPORTS, "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." It is only an indication that the subject is likely to be notable. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." There is no source presented that establishes his notability as a coach. There is only a source that lists the records for every school year, including the lone season Herman coached. The text and sources on his later years relies heavily on Census information and draft information from Ancestry.com. Those documents are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, and cannot be used to establish notability as they are not WP:SECONDARY sources (see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#Ancestry.com). Also, being drafted is not exactly notable as it is more run-of-the-mill (WP:ROTM), especially in those times. Finally, WP:ARTICLEAGE does not advise leniency simply because an article was recently created. It's notability should be established while being developed on a user page, for example, before subjecting it to scrutiny in the article space. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of coverage, meets WP:GNG and Cbl62 has clearly articulated why this person was notable, so we can defer the argument about WP:NSPORTS and college coaches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. And can I say, it's absurd that you're trying to use Google Hits to measure notability for someone active before World War II? Not all historical media coverage was magically ported to the internet. matt91486 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not absurd at all. I create many, many articles on people active before WWI or WWII, and there are plenty of sources available for the notable ones. Many American newspapers of this period are available online, just like many books. In some ways, it is easier to find info on people active in 1920 than it is for people active in 1950, since more of the info has become public domain. Fram (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Hits: Amos Alonzo Stagg, about 103,000. Bobby Bowden, about 452,000. Current living notable people will always have more than those in the past. In this example, Bowden has 4 1/2 times more. Google hits can be a measure to look at, but to base notability on that is foolish. WP:GOOGLE provides more detail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Current living notable people have more than those in the past, true, but "9" is extremely low for a supposedly notable American of any period. Anyway, I would never argue that someone is not notable beacuse of a lack of Google hits, if sufficient good sources were available anyway. I am however not swayed by the sources that were found, and don't see him meeting any of the accepted relevant notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - 9? Try a lot more than that. You claim that there are only 9 sources found online with google, yet there are 13 online sources in the article and a total of 25 sources cited. On Google, the search "Arthur Herman" +football +"Franklin & Marshall" yeilds 76 alone, and that's a pretty specific search. I really don't know what to say beyond that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I'm sorry, you may change "9" to "13"[15], which changes, umm, nothing (note that not even all of these 13 are about this Arthur S. Herman, e.g. one is about "Arthur Herman, Author of Ghandi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry", and another about "Arthur Herman Wilson, professor of English at Susquehanna Uuiversity"). Fram (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment Discussing raw numbers of sources found or actually used is detracting from the more important point of "What do the articles say about the subject?". Consensus will need to decide if a college player and college coach who also played minor league baseball but never competed at the highest level was interesting enough based on non-WP:PRIMARY sources to not be WP:Run-of-the-mill and established notability that was WP:NOTINHERITED. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a Google hits count is not the best measure of notability even for contemporary persons, let alone for persons living in the early 1900s. What is important under WP:GNG is whether the person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. Even with incomplete access to newspapers of the era, we have multiple newspaper articles reporting on Herman as the principal subject of the coverage. These are not passing references to Herman in game coverage, but in depth coverage of Herman individually. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls villains[edit]

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

This article contains a lot of in-universe information, and no real coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too long for the page List of The Powerpuff Girls characters, why is apart. And I do not understand about "no real coverage to provide it".--ToonsFan (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ToonsFan's points--a legitimate subarticle, and while it might be a little long in parts, I don't really see this as an "in universe" piece, but rather a well-organized summary of content about a significant cartoon show. (As an aside, I happened to make use of this article just last week to explain a Mojo Jojo reference to someone who'd never seen the show.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a well-organized, comprehensive article that is valuable and useful to all Powerpuff fans and Mojo Jojo fans like me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of books.google.com comes up with pleanty of hits for some of those characters in reliable third party books. The list might need references, but they clearly exist, so I cannot support deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List articles for such a major series are fine. Dream Focus 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No closing rationale can give justice to the bizarreness of both the article and this discussion, so, just to summarize: apart from the subject himself and his WP:SPA colleagues, whose WP:TLDR walls of text I have skipped over, almost all agree that the subject is not notable and that the content fails nearly every policy in the book, as explained by Agricola44. Sandstein 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles S. Herrman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No referenced assertion of notability, sources are subject's Web site or VDM publshing imprints, Google Scholar mostly turns up a WWI-era pediatrician who is not this person.--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the one who contested the prod, but not because I think the subject is notable. My reason for wanting it to go to AfD was http://www.csherrman.com/images-tables-and-charts-for-wiki-documentation/ I don't see any permission for Wikipedia to use those images. If, as I suspect, there is a copyright violation, the images need to be dealt with in all articles that use them. Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spam, though limited, and a life's share of original research. The references are used to support the essay so there's no point following them, and while i didn't read the bibliography it seems to be the same. No news, no books, no scholar, and six pages of dry search hits. But copyvio was just grand - frankie^MR (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The hyperlink to the images refers, curiously, to wikipedia, most of them are original content, but the case isn't that, the article is filled with POV and also the subject is closely tied to its contributor, and even though the article is written by a very intelectual person, it is extensively filled with personal reflections and there is no verifiability on the sources as denoted by other user that wrote that in the article's talk page. I think this is a major hoax or some kind of small philosopher who thinks he can garner attention by starting an article in wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting my comments here due to my misunderstanding of the rules and policies here. Many apologies to all who had to wade through them. I hope it is OK to delete all of this junk I made.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Please don't make legal threats - frankie^MR (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned user using Template:uw-legal. Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - Facebook pages are not reliable sources for notability. There's no witch hunt, there's just a lack of multiple significant reliable sources that validate anything in this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Before progressing to the main course, a note on the methodology being employed in this charade – and yes, a charade it certainly is. First, we have a notice to remove, with language describing how anybody can take it down provided an explanation is offered. Which was done, whereat a new remove tag replaces the original, less the information re removal. So apparently there’s ‘removal’, and then there’s ‘Removal’. Right. So there may be some fancy and Wiki-correct maneuvering here; but to an intelligent observer it smacks of unprofessionalism. The first remark in my defense was also abreast of the rules, yes, let’s admit that straight up. Let’s also understand the guy is no fool and you’ve royally pissed him off on account of one little unnoticed factoid: your provocation was thrice his error, so don’t be too supercilious with your rules. In fact, you’d best tread lightly. Enough said for intelligent folk, K? Third, I am dumbstruck by the clubby atmosphere on this page. You act like you can half talk as if in a public forum and half muddle with cant specific to some Wiki potentates presuming themselves beyond accountability, to wit—

"Spam [which is what in this instance?]”, though limited, and a life's share of original research [true enough and it’s not over by any means]. The references are used to support the essay so there's no point following them [in addition to supporting the thematics they support specific statements of fact calling for references], and while i didn't read the bibliography it seems to be the same [boy are you lame]. No news, no books, no scholar, and six pages of dry search hits [and where did the Wiki reliance on politeness disappear to?]. But copyvio [and this cant refers to what, precisely?] was just grand."

Well, dear Sir, methinks your history may speak for itself in this instance as in another recent one:

[Line deleted. Please do not insert statements and sign them with another editor's username]

BTW, real scholars go to the effort of doing actual research. And finally, the uncanny presumptions of seeming bullies – What do Wiki rules suggest about presuming a ‘hoax’ prior to the facts, or a ‘little philosopher’ looking for a stage…isn’t such grandiosity getting a little ahead of the game, dear boys? You dudes need to catch your breath.

We progress without salad to the entrée…(French style, salad is the last paragraph). True to my style I speak hereafter in the third person.

So you required a full year to discover the obvious. Congratulations. Great job one and all. Yes, your suspicion is correct, Mr. Man 1951 IS Charles S. Herrman. And perhaps you now require to understand why your puritan morality is getting in the way of a scholar’s efforts and possibly also muddying Mr. Wale's ultimate objectives.

The object of an encyclopedia, if we must be reminded, is to disseminate accurate information of relevance to presupposed interested parties, be they the public or any specialized subsection thereof (academics, politicians, government officials, what have you). In the present instance we have several significant contributions from a theorist in as many separate fields. Before we go further down this path, please consider how many others of whom the same might be said. How many in any encyclopedia have accomplished so much? And you deem this present author as other than notable? You could best begin by explaining yourselves with far greater credibility.

Let's get straight a piece of relevant logic. The credibility of an encyclopedic entry has little if any relation to the number of degrees or journal articles of the writer, but instead and primarily of the presence and quality of references and citations. But more even than those (which of course are not unimportant!) the evidence of your own lights. The entry under Charles S. Herrman is not so recondite that intelligent folks can't reasonably follow along. It isn't so offbeat or off-putting that a scholar or academic can't appreciate wherein the content is novel, worthwhile or otherwise. The only tag raised on the page that made any superficial sense was thus the request for an expert in the area. But a question: Why was that necessary? Its relevance lies not as to whether the content or source is 'notable' but whether it is itself a significant contribution in the relevant field of scholarly study. We know from experience that intelligent people once introduced to Mr. Herrman's numerous contributions have no trouble understanding that these contributions are weighty, regardless whether others have partially contributed to their existence (where Mr. Herrman has been accountable and transparent, to the point of defending ‘hard’ academic scholars against the publicity-seeking ‘soft’ scholars in which category he places himself, with the implication that soft scholars have a higher level of stewardship duty).

For you to challenge the authority of Mr. Herrman as if he could not possibly have significant material of interest to millions of good people, indicates less a dearth of sources than a dearth of responsible intelligence. But then, we live in a society where few accept the slightest accountability for assessing anything but self-interest. We have come to expect outside authorities to warrant all facts and settle all disputes, so that whatever finally crosses our transom shall never require the slightest lifting of a finger of our mental muscle. We have enough effort only to reach for the rubber stamp. Just to be completely hypocritical, we proceed to take all or most of the credit! Is it really up to Charles Herrman to cough up all of your desired justifications? Not less than half of what you are actually requiring (aside from or included in actual requests) should have come from inside your own minds had you but understood your true responsibilities. If you can’t come to the conclusion a commoner can attain to, what are you doing there apart from mending the tightness of the barbed wire in a mental prison-house?

People go to war over considerations upon the existence of God. We manage somehow not to fault folks for failing to adduce an authority acceptable to Wikipedia editors, and yet billions upon billions of people use their own lights to decide on these matters, never mind the godly foresight of Wikipedians. You have reduced me to a schoolmarm, at which I am uncomfortable because I am unaccustomed to treating adults as children. The Enlightenment found Kant shouting Sapere Aude! = dare to know. He might have added, ‘dare to challenge authority predicated upon your own lights’, and finally, this: ‘determine its validity likewise’. Reread that last part for good measure. The reason we are still in need of this lesson (oh, geez, the general idea was mentioned in the Charles S. Herrman article – for shame!) is that at present we are living as slaves to credentials of dubious validity and still we have yet to appreciate the elements for determining true authority in a truly respectful manner. You Wikipedians have a few things to learn, and you should start forthwith by rereading and rereading again Mr. Herrman!!

When Catherin Drinker Bowen wrote her biography of Franklin she titled it "The Most Dangerous Man in America." Perhaps we might say the same of Mr. Herrman. Because he is an independent scholar making the majority of academics look a tad brittle by comparison, he is truly a dangerous person who doubtless should be executed for his impudence at examining, explicating and disseminating truths others can hardly dream of without a whole lot of professional assistance. Mr. Herrman is a dangerous human being because he spotlights the failure of human beings to hold themselves accountable, individually or collectively. He has single-handedly created the undercarriage of much of the political science of offices and office-holding, and of the entirety of stewardship studies, to say nothing of the concepts of authority, prerogative, and the legal issues bearing upon each of these. Yes, others have addressed aspects of field, as for example Weber and recently Sennet. Only Herrman has tied them all together with intercalated principles and then demonstrated their practical applicability. And we are only just warming up! So for all that these anonymous editors refuse to countenance, we are graced with seven tags itemizing faults made to appear as if God's holy sanctimony were violated.

After a year in which the page was peaceably accepted, two Wikipedians, perhaps spurred by an outside source, failed to so much as consider the precedent established by thirty or more others having added to the page without complaint. One, as recently as December of 2010, at a time when the page was essentially complete, added over ten minor but necessary and helpful additions without once challenging anything, without asserting any god-given right to crusade against dangerous geniuses amongst us. In law this is all dealt with by precedent. Bear in mind that many an expert has surely passed over the Charles S. Herrman page, apparently without feeling any need to challenge it. Furthermore, there are a number of related technical sites that refer back to this one, and again, we can scarcely suppose no professionals or experts having been made aware, all without apparent challenge. Precedent speaks volumes as a modality of assent, credible even in its silence. For editors in a public forum such as Wikipedia to ignore that as if baseless is just not a credible claim. One naturally wonders if these editors fathom how perfectly awful this looks to many of sound judgment, who may well see a vendetta of unseemly proportion

Then an additional tag was placed atop the Biography section, declaring the absence of any sources or references. In point of fact, they were absent only because a moralizing loose cannon elected to remove them all himself! The rationale given was that the personal website to which they originally pointed could not be accepted as genuine (in the sense of authoritative). The first tag to be removed was apparently the one referencing Mr. Herrman's recommendation by Professor Hartshorne. Now here is a little fact that will shed much light on the process as a whole. That reference was to a digital image of a signed document, on the professor's personal stationary. It did not dawn on anyone that such a source is valid regardless where it is stationed (i.e. which server for whichever site – naturally the original is available to anyone who wishes to check it out). Furthermore, that personal website was employed not merely for convenience (though it was and remains that) but because it was in concordance with Wikipedia rules! What it did ultimately do, however, was to correctly suggest the identity of self and shadow, of Herrman and Mr. Mann (the translation from the German of the proper noun). Perhaps our high-minded encyclopedists are more concerned to fine-tune rules and exemplify them emblematically in test-cases than to assist scholars in properly utilizing a public forum by which to make them available to the broadest audience.

Here is the nub, in brief: A remarkable thinker considered as such by "the world's greatest living metaphysician" (Britannica, 15th ed.) is impliedly dangerous because symbolizing a failure to dutifully conform to practices that, however well-intentioned, are anachronistic in areas of significance. The requirement that we Google a scholar for peer-reviewed articles is the truest example of blind and thoughtless conformity such as Christ alluded to in the parable of the fisherman's request to attend his father's funeral. Herrman’s work is so astounding that a person of average lights can comprehend the significance of it never mind any expectable ignorance of the professional literature.

It was claimed that VDM is a vanity publisher. It is not. What is valid is the claim of an absence of peer review, economics governing the end result. The publisher was asked by Herrman to republish at a lower price especially for the American market. They are apparently as stubborn as certain Wikipedia editors. As for their imprint AlphaScript, these are titles taken from Wikipedia and are accordingly as credible as the source they have in common. Perhaps the editors are unaware of the Wikipedian copyright policy…perhaps they would argue that, rule or no, the practice is illegitimate. Fine, but while making your point, please be aware that others can make similar claims, somewhat after the fashion of these very remarks.

It was claimed that SSRN (Social Sciences Research Network) does not peer review. Again, correct. But what is the issue of such a complaint? The fact is this: solid authors, even of top-rated articles, cite SSRN working papers within their peer-reviewed publish articles. No, not always, of course, but sufficient that the blatant implication surrounding the claim is simply not valid. Mr. Herrman has been asked by experts requesting he send articles because the download from the site failed. He was asked permission from a major law publisher in India for reprint permission on a major SSRN piece (“Common Denominators in White Collar Crime”). He has received a compliment from a Ph.D. student asking him to finish the series on “Fundamentals of Methodology” because the first three had been so helpful, and that he wished the set would make for a text that he would be the first to purchase. Now seriously, must we record or digitize such comments in order to offer evidence for what an average intellect ought to comprehend with a small amount of effort? What is your problem? You are trying to impugn a notable scholar and theorist. How, pray tell, does that jibe with the stewardship of your office(s)?

Here is what should be demanded of the editorial staff at Wikipedia. The Charles S. Herrman page deserves 'protection' from future marauders. It deserves to be updated in its rating and deserves a very high rating indeed. An advocate for Mr. Herrman has wished it be known that the Charles S. Herrman page is the most impressive anywhere on Wikipedia! Surely there are others of like opinion. This page deserves to be given notable status if only to demonstrate that competent scholarship need not presuppose formal education or publishing, and certainly does not deserve what clearly is a vendetta. If it be true that Mr. Herrman has breached ethical norms, how about showing your hand and delivering the evidence? No evidence as to content has appeared; we have been treated to some Wikipedia norms that certainly seem solid when flowing from the lips, but a philosopher goes deeper and brings reservations to bear.

Salad

It is Mr. Herrman’s understanding that the founder of Wikipedia valued knowledge for its own sake, for its content, more than its source. Yes, sources require to be present as necessary or as reason may dictate. But in an open source medium where all add credibility to a page, how does that square with enforcing so much from the major contributors? I venture to say most errors and issues are the work of minor contributors, at least in my experience. If Mr. Wales values broadly informed input, I should think he can hardly ignore the logic of broadly credentialed major contributors. By that we obviously include independent scholars or the merest of ‘experts’ who bring credentials of a slightly different sort, and where, like any article, the readership bears a large responsibility for acknowledgment of quality or the lack thereof. Should he disagree, I certainly would enjoy hearing from him. In fact, here is a challenge. Show him these remarks side by side the complaints. Let the Emperor speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr man1951 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone has a TL;DR moment and missed it, a key quote from the above: "So you required a full year to discover the obvious. Congratulations. Great job one and all. Yes, your suspicion is correct, Mr. Man 1951 IS Charles S. Herrman." Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I wasn't clear about the concepts used. Spam refers to content that endorses or advertises a certain product, work or individual. Original Research means that most or all of the content was researched by the contributor, instead of being a work that has been reviewed by reliable, independent sources. That is the reason most of the references cannot be used, since they are used to support the content of such original research. Copyvio is short for copyright violation, and it used to say that the content's licensing status may not be in compliance with Wikipedia's criteria. The concern about it was raised because of the images used in the article, and I will add that it may apply to the text as well if it has been published in this form elsewhere. Finally, the comments about no news, no books, no scholar meant that there were none or very few results from Google's News, Books, and Scholar services, and that weighs in the matter of whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards - frankie^MR (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User Istheleftright is probably a sockpuppet of Mr man1951. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have to look at all the contributions across Wikipedia from User:Mr man1951 and User:Istheleftright and verify the contributions are appropriate. It might also be wise to search for all articles using VDM Publishing or Social Science Research Network as sources. Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dusty shelf claims the authority to release copyright on some of the images in the article and so may also be affiliated with the subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — While you are all evidently concerned with scheming the removal of an irritant, you might ask yourself how all of this might appear to Mr. Wales were he to pay a visit here. And BTW you apparently know no more of my sockdolager (not really a sockpuppet) than you know of me, and for the same reasons. Since you argue that I haven't the qualification of a scholar, you could at least come to the table with clean hands. One does that not by acting like ingrates, but by doing your jobs. Your immediate concern should rather be to work with us to find a desirable outcome. Because of your obstructionist and high-handed manners and your apparent incapacity to acknowledge where you have been deficient (by comparison observe my recent intent to forward transparency), this is the last you will hear from me until or unless you demonstrate that you are here as much to resolve an honest controversy rather than to exercise your testosterone production. You might - what a concept! - try to address some of the issues I raised above. I don't mean to foment discord, but to remind you that your conduct leaves much to be desired and had best be modified if you expect to claim the moral high ground here.Mr man1951 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite helpful if you were to give us a list of all the accounts you use to edit Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started a Sockpuppetry investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_man1951, and the conclusion is that in fact they are the same, however the other accounts I provided that were probably sockpuppets and some IPs don't show conclusive proofs. BTW I can't understand a word he says, it seems to have no cohesion at all. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the merits of the particular article, it is interesting to see criticism of how the Wikipedia processes appear to relatively new contributors. We do use a lot of short-hand jargon here, and the processes are rough and ready. Perhaps this material would be better off in Wikibooks. Wikipedia has to rely on "notability" in the sense of multiple independent sources, precisely because we have no "editorial board" - we have to borrow editorial discretion from others, so we're severely limited on what we can report on here. For example, I have no knowledge of current leading edge mathematics, physics, or philosophy - but I can look at citations and verify they are relevant to the point that they support. Analyzing the contributor accounts is beside the point; the article went to AfD on its contents and paucity of reliable sources. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~ "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." And, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" ... In my humble opinion, Charles S. Herrman is worthy of an article in its own right. Did you guys read the whole article? I edited it a few months ago, but I had forgotten how "big" this article is. Yes, certainly there is much work still to be done, but I think and hope that we all together will make this article a good article, and fully compliant with Wikipedia. Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator - But why is this particular person considered notable enough for an article? Wikipedia:Notability (academics) seems pertinent. We are given 9 criteria there, basically showing how the general notability guideline would be met by showing influence on the field, awards, positions held, and citations to publications. None of that is evident so far. Maybe the article should be userfied? The article also needs to be refactored to segregate the biographical information (which is what this article should be about) from the subject matter of his work; but that can be done after AfD finishes, if still necessary. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those reliable, independent sources that feature the subject are precisely what we are missing in order to assess its notability, which is the main issue concerning the deletion. Also note that it isn't the same an article about Mr. Herrman than an article about the subject that he works on. Both are plausible as long as the content is verifiable and notable as per reliable sources. After that the content must comply to other considerations (such as no spam, no original research, neutrality), but those are normally resolved through cleanup and discussion at the article's talk page - frankie^MR (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This case has almost every warning flag there is: article full of WP:OR, no WP:RS (only numerous unpublished white-papers), COI (WP:SPA-created by Istheleftright – likely vanity), WP:CRYSTAL ("Herrman has had three sizeable unpublished manuscripts on number theory circulating for some time now amongst a circle of friends and readers/editors. As he makes it ready for a broader audience (before 2011) we will report of it here"), WP:COATRACK (most of the art is on his metaphysics), AfD socking, legal threats, prolix wikilawyering, and on and on! But if we cut through all of that, the main problem is a glaring lack of notability. This reminds me a little of 2 other recent cases (here and here) in that the article paints the subject as an intellectual whose great achievements have not yet been recognized by the mainstream, i.e. he has numerous intellectual works, but they're all in the form of unpublished essays. I agree that the problem isn't so much that he doesn't have academic credentials or a formal position. The problem is that there are no legitimate works that demonstrate notability: no publications, so not citations; no independent articles about him, etc. To some of the commentators above, I emphasize that, because his entire scholarship appears to be unpublished (e.g. 0 WoS hits), he is not recognized as an authority on any of these subjects by other people, even though he clearly views himself as such. Even GS, which slurps in lots of unpublished material shows nothing! I can only gather that any citations discussed above are self-citations that even GS seems to be unaware of. This is the crux of the notability problem. His only claim seems to be on a short letter of introduction written by Charles Hartshorne when the latter was apparently 100 years old (available here), but this ephemeral piece is far from sufficient. I'm sorry to say that this is an absolutely uncontroversial "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Agricola44. Also, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 22:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(Moved here from my talk page -Guy)

Re Charles S. Herrman removal: You have now identified both identities, i.e., Dusty Shelf and Mr. Man 1951. BTW it appears that the language and attitude are improving, for which I offer my thanks. Pass it on...Mr man1951 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure, those are the only two identities? Istheleftright is not one of your identities? And you haven't been using IP address identities (in other words editing without logging in)? Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am deleting my comment due to my misunderstanding of the material here. Hope that is OK.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just some very friendly and well-intentioned advice. Additional threats of this kind are certain to get you blocked. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That's twice that you have made a legal threat. Making legal threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. It addition, you revealed personal information about another editor (which I removed and deleted from the page history). Revealing personal information about other editors is also strictly prohibited, and editors who reveal personal information about another editor may be blocked. You might also want to ask Charles S. Herrman whether he approves of your WikiBullying on his behalf. Most academics do not tolerate such behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment −I do have to admit to chafing under circumstances in which ignorance, ‘attitude’ and/or agenda stand in judgment of my work. Let me simply address most of my issues with a single item, a single piece of reality-testing exemplified in the following excerpt (to be cited momentarily):

Although some quantitative measures of evaluation may be employed, excellence in performance is of primary importance; that is, the quality, significance, and impact of accomplishments are of greater importance than their number. In addition to meritorious accomplishments, a high potential for continued excellence is required for promotion….

First, a lesson in methodological analysis: “quality, significance and impact” in fact denote a cascading series, a graded transition from what is internal and conceptual, to what is external and empirical. Or, to be still more forward, they translate from one end or kind of notability to another polarity of the same. You all are trying to gauge my work strictly on the notability dictated by established impact. I have been arguing that notability stemming from quality (and which an intelligent person - without ‘attitude’ or agenda - will usually discern) must also enter into the equation. Based on the excerpt, I suggest that I have the better of this argument. Note also the remarks above of Pjoef, the same progression.

The middle term, ‘significance’, straddles the two, and in analytical work must be taken as two distinct, if closely related concepts. It is this awareness and the ability to apply it so as to develop understandings not before observed that makes such work special both in quality and in both aspects of significance. I happen to be the stoop who has done the most to develop this methodological theory, to ground and apply it. It is substantially the reason why I, and not you, make varied contributions to knowledge (in case you care to know the unpleasant reality).

This is also a good example of two additional analytic points (truisms, actually). The first is that true metaphysics requires a four-part logic and that the three-part syllogistic logic is an empirical reduction of the deeper metaphysical. Syllogisms are actually four-part whether Puritanical conformist types wish to assent or not. Second, it is another of countless examples to demonstrate a deep truth, namely, that careful thinkers think paradigmatically. But that is way beyond your pay grade, I fear. But of sufficient “significance”, nonetheless, to be in the Charles S. Herrman page…

The excerpt comes to us care of the 1991 University Statement on Academic Freedom, Responsibility, and Tenure. It is the approved recipe for establishing tenure deservedness. So let’s take the upshot as it pertains to the Agricola-type ingrate sitting in judgment of their intellectual superiors. We see, first, that as significance can describe a potential of quality such as to impress both thought and ultimately empirical elements, the other aspect describes one of the reasons enabling a finding or achievement to progress to point of impact. It is the lead consideration in the last part of the excerpt where we are enabled to predict future achievements predicated on prior. The progress of my work through forty years is a nice exemplification of that.

Independent scholars suffer at the hands of conformist ingrates who cannot comprehend the value of what they read or who have an agenda against independent scholarship. At any rate, that needs to change, and Wikipedia could be the ideal place for inroads to develop. There is simply no reason why an “independent scholar” status cannot be developed and implemented for Wikipedia entries. It would not radically alter notability requirements, for obvious reasons, again the Wiki policy above offered by Pjoef. And then, we can always cite the example of Einstein when told his work would require to be peer reviewed. Talk about an unhappy camper. And despite the errors in that paper, it was his repute and no one else’s that properly lain at risk. The academic press has the requirement simply to keep out ingrates, those who believe that their earned degrees or levels of professorship qualify them rather than evident contributions, where by ‘evident’ we do not mean to restrict notability so narrowly. It is time to see change. I and others like me are that change. We are the future, like it or not.Mr man1951 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to push the "bias against independent scholars" angle, but we all already recognize that as a red herring. The real problem is utter lack of demonstrable notability. You're right, we do not take "notability" in the sense you want, i.e. what is little more than a self-proclamation of "quality". We instead take it in its conventional (and WP policy-based) sense: "notability" means "having been noted" by others. Moreover, this is not a borderline case where the question is whether the subject has been noted enough. Here, there clearly has been no noting whatsoever! Not even by GS! I'm sorry to be so frank, but the problem, recognizable to anyone familiar with the workings of the academic/intellectual enterprise, is that all of these scholarly papers listed in the bibliography have never seen the light of day in publication form, so they've never been examined, scrutinized, or noted by anyone else. I'll not venture to speculate why. What matters simply is that WP policy is very clear on the point of notability, and this article conclusively fails all the notability tests we might apply. You may continue to call me an ingrate, or whatever other names you wish. But statements like "The academic press has the requirement simply to keep out ingrates" do nothing more than give the perception of being an angry poser. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

delete. No independent verification of notability of this person. All references are either from his or to support the statements whic are not directly related to him. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Comment I believe that we have now resolved all sockpuppet issues (I thank Mr man1951 and istheleftright/for their candor) and now know who is who. I see no deliberate attempt to game the system, just some new users who don't know the rules. I suggest that we no longer discuss sockpuppetry here (talk about it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr man1951 instead) and and instead focus upon notability. Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone who actually came back and admitted a truth lol. Thanks Guy Macon for seeing we are not the same two people.

Comment Mr man1951, please click on the following links: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Study them well Those are the policies we follow. You following those policies is the only way you can possibly win this fight. Bloviating about how Jimbo Wales would allegedly support you will get you nowhere. Jimbo Wales has absolute power to change those Wikipedia Policies, and again and again he has supported them - in many cases he invented them. So your assertion that somehow Jimbo Wales would approve of your not following the policies I just listed is factually incorrect. Likewise, your assertion that we have something against you is incorrect. Why would I have anything against you? I don't know you and my interests are in the area of engineering. Please consider the possibility that you are wrong and that I and others are just following Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment I made now deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + Comment (Delete added after original comment). fails WP:NOR, WP:NOTWEBSPACE, WP:SELFPUB, WP:N, among others.

Also, the following pages that redirect to Charles S. Herrman should probably also be included in this AfD: Mildly Mad^T_C 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Exposure Theory
- Belief-Reliance Systems and Belief-Reliance System
- Archetypal hierarchies
- Fourthness
- Trait-Based Nosology
- Cultural Typology
- Honor-Dignity Typology
- Paradigmatics

If the result of the AfD is to delete, I will place speedy deletion notices on those pages under rationale "G8: Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." and they will be nuked within hours. Unless, of course, Wtshymanski‎ wants to do it; IIRC he is keeping a running total of how many pages he nominates vs. successfully deletes, and this would improve his stats - deleting articles is easy and fun! If the result of the AfD is to keep, that means you accidentally logged in to Encyclopedia Dramatica ("Wikipedia's Evil Twin") instead of Wikipedia. <grin> Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm not too familiar with AfD, apparently I need to have more faith in the process :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 03:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want Wtshymanksi to delete a page

Wtshymanksi cannot delete a page. He isn't an admin. He can nominate pagees for deletion just like anyone else.Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it will improve his stats and because deleting is FUN?

Yup. In the scenario I described somebody is going to nominate those redirects to nothing for deletion. Might as well be Wtshymanksi - he thinks it's fun, I think it's boring clerical work.Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted another comment per talk with Guy Macon.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only clear to you, and only because you refuse to read the pages describing the policies you are violating. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. If you had bothered to read the guidelines you would know that speedy deletes are not done for notability issues. If you had bothered to pay attention you would have caught on to the fact that I described deleting redirects that have no page to redirect to. Coming here with a chip on your shoulder and picking a fight is bad enough, but at least get your facts straight. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. I don't have (or desire) the power to delete a Wikipedia page Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you exhibit willful ignorance and a deep unwillingness to learn how Wikipedia works. The history tab has a complete record of everything ever written. I couldn't delete it if I wanted to. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not properly sourced. Not in appropriate style. No evidence of notability. Little evidence of intelligibility... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not an admin. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort, and all contributors can comment in deletions discussions, as elsewhere. Secondly, I note that the article suggests that Hermann "places language in the ‘bio-social’ category, mooring it to the realm of tool use". Language (in this case, written language) is supposedly being used as a tool for communication. Is it not possible that the fact that I find it unintelligible might be an indication of the inappropriate use of said tools? Though I'm not sure I'm educated to a higher standard then others in this discussion, I'm sure I'm educated to a higher standard than the majority of Wikipedia readers, and as such am qualified to at least offer an opinion on the appropriateness of such incomprehensibility. This is an encyclopaedia, not a learned philosophical journal, and it is up to us, as contributors, to write in a way that can be understood by those who are likely to be reading our articles. This is why we are here. This isn't supposed to be an exercise in vanity publishing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The hypocrisy of admins on this page is amazing", stop engaging in personal attacks or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been warned (and the people you are complaining about are not admins).Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– To whom it concerns, "bio-social" is that category of activity in which a biologically sourced and driven act is evoltutionarily devised to effectuate changes in the social network. Nothing too untoward or difficult here, is there? Speech, according to Searle, is a "speech act" (a position I also favor), meaning the kind of act referred to here. But I seriously doubt that Searle was brought up in that context since there was no need for it, the comment stood on its own two feet. Don't frankly comprehend your statement that the material is unintelligible. It is not See Jane run, true enough. Real philosophy is not too simple, especially metaphysically grounded such as office and stewardship later on in the article.

As for Istheleftright utilizing Wikibullying. That rather reads to me the antics of those having exercised that very conduct that is then attributed to others upon the slightest provocation. Let's be clear at least morally if not entirely in regard of rules: in acting as you have you have in jural terms somewhat lost the right to be protected from the same. Most folks grasp that simply by the process of living life. Where did you lose out on that lesson? Most honest folk reading these exchanges must surely wonder how you can complain at anybody's anger after what you have wantonly perpetrated on your intellectual superior(s). You are a sorry bunch IMO. And I am sorry to feel it necessary to so say. Very sorry indeed.Mr man1951 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember: on Wikipedia, there is no cabal, it's just a figment of your imagination :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 03:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr man1951, shame on you. Defending a WikiBully who attempts to intimidate other editors with legal threats is contemptible, especially when your only justification is "two wrongs make a right." BTW, you are NOT my intellectual superior. Not even close. Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr man1951, If your only response to a suggestion that you cannot communicate is to provide a further demonstration of the same, I feel sorry for you. And if you really think that communication is something you do 'at' people, rather than 'with' them, I'd also question your claims to intellectual superiority. In any case, none of this is of the slightest significance here, as even (as unlikely as it seems) were your theories to be later shown to have been of merit, we cannot take notice of them until they receive recognition by outsiders other than vanity publishers who will willingly print any old nonsense in exchange for cash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something that I think needs to be emphasized is that Wikipedia editors are not judging "the work", at most we are judging "does this article conform to the policies and guidelines for a Wikipedia article?" We don't (absolutely) rely on editor's technical judgment or knowledge, we rely on citations to assure that what is in an article is verifiable, in the sense that other people have written about the topic in certain qualified forms. I'm certainly not educated in philosophy, but I can recognize when an article has no sources and when a search using the tools I have available doesn't turn up anyone else discussing the subject matter. Hits on Google Books don't guarantee notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) but make it a lot easier for our self-selected editors to validate that the source exists. The only reason I stumbled upon this article in the first place was that I was following up the sources listed in User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources. After tracking down al the references to absoluteastronomy.com and removing those places where this site had been used as a reference, I started looking at the VDM imprints and articles that used those publications as their only sources. Although not listed in that user essay, I think the SSRN site also appears to lack peer review and editorial controls sufficient to make it reliable in the Wikipedia sense; unless SSRN is being used as an archive to access papers that have subsequently been published in peer-reviewed or editorially-controlled publications, I think it's dubious to use SSRN pre-prints as the sole source for facts in Wikipedia. A Wikipedia AfD is not supposed to be a seminar on the worthiness of a field of human endeavor, it's a collection of scribbled notes between editors deciding if a particular 3 x 5 card belongs in the card catalog or not. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment − I would point out a difficulty in the Wiki concept of ‘notability’. While it is evident that every care has been taken to acknowledge the relevance of kinds of topicality on notability, the general (or core) concepts do not entirely agree with the spirit of certain specific topic areas. Under Notability qua notability we find that: “Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.” The initial criterion for the notability in the specific category of people has been mentioned above by Pjoef, and details what I have also remarked 'on: “The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.”

Now let’s notice something about the second element in each of these, where ‘famous’ and ‘popular’ are mentioned. These both refer to external verification no less than for academics, the only distinction being the kind of such third-party notice. A point not to be lost here is that in these two examples a composite of worth and verification coexist that we observe in few other areas, and assuredly not the category of academics. We note as well that whereas not all categories have the worthiness criteria, they all have verification criteria that flatly contradict the fact and spirit of the worthiness content.

None of this is calculated, I am afraid to say, to make for a happy day at the logic factory. It needs clarification so badly as to invite errors and false interpretations such as we have been observing throughout the exchanges on this talk page. I would explain all of the facets of the logic and what can be done to get around the problematic here, but perhaps we should first allow the experts to explain themselves and how it is they feel they can pick and choose whatever locution they prefer while ignoring the criteria under which Herrman’s work might easily qualify. They might explain, for example, why we don’t speak of the notability of Einstein when it isn’t the physicist, for example, and why it is that we might treat physics differently than, say, poetry or music or art. The latter are sub-categories of content and are actually what define the topicality of the individual practicing said content. Why can Wiki rules detail worthiness for some sub-content but not others? Why does the core principle appear to entirely erase the merit of worthiness as a criterion?Mr man1951 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. If you wish to propose a revision to established Wikipedia policy regarding notability, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion. If you wish to propose a revision to established Wikipedia policy regarding notability, this isn't the place to do it. Were we arguing the merits of equal opportunity prior to Brown, the Court would tell us that our best legal minds were “of no relevance whatsoever…if you wish to propose a revision to established law regarding rights, try a legislature.” Were we arguing the merits of political opportunity since Citizens United, the Court would tell us that our best legal minds have become “of no relevance whatsoever…if you wish to propose a revision to established law regarding rights, try impeaching a few of us or pass a constitutional amendment.”

We began, and recently returned - not a few with and without legal knowledge might conclude - to the latitudes of the legal Middle Ages, and it would appear that the same process is at work right here, to which, Congratulations. And as to my history lesson, you can doubtless complain that it smacks of opinion rather than fact, and that the principle of neutrality forbids we allow such a travesty bearing upon what many good folk might well conclude to be a dearth of sensitivity, intelligence and ethical wherewithal, to which, again, Congratulations.Mr man1951 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law. Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and standards, arrived at largely by the consensus of its contributors. If you wish to contribute, you will be expected to adhere to such policies and standards. You are of course also entitled to argue that such policies should be changed,though this isn't an appropriate place to do so. Either accept the way we work, and comply, or chose not to contribute. Unless you have anything further to add regarding the notability of Herrman according to Wikipedia's criteria, I suggest you stop wasting your time on this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand upon the above.

Re: "You are of course also entitled to argue that such policies should be changed,though this isn't an appropriate place to do so.", Be aware that even if you convinced everyone here that wouldn't change the policy. You truly are wasting your time arguing that the policy is wrong here.

Re: "Either accept the way we work, and comply, or chose not to contribute", I would add that in the case of your recent personal attacks against other editors, either comply with the policy or you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– Thank you for that clarification and expansion Andy. Again, please recognize that I am not Mr. Herrman, rather the guy who pointed him to Wikipedia in the first place, and the guy who is defending him and his enormous work as best as I can. While I may have flown off the handle here a few times, it is not something that I wish you or anyone else here to take personally. I am naturally defending a friend and compatriot here, and wish to see that the work and time he spent on this page be defended with all dispatch. You all have made it clear enough now your arguments or policies. I have of course chimed in with my interpretation of what was done here with my comments. As a side note toward those rigorously defended policies you have stated many times here, he was accused of many things, and not once has anyone apologized to him for those baseless accusations which are or should be violations of policies as well. And this just inflames me to no end here. You all act as if when someone of my standing comes in and says something illegal or wrong or in violation of policy, but when you all do worse, no one can say or do anything about it. Anyway, I have pretty much said all I can say.Istheleftright (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken in your assumption that I have confused the two of you. I am the person who posted the research about the IP addresses each of you used (See [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr man1951] strongly suggesting no deliberate sockpuppetry (just my opinion, not an official ruling), but both of you did by your own admission post under multiple identities.

BOTH of you have engaged in personal attacks. See the warnings posted on [User talk:Istheleftright] and [User talk:Mr man1951]. In addition, you have made legal threats and posted personal information about another editor. There is a very good chance that one or both of you will end up banned from Wikipedia for this behavior. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted another comment.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused, and it still has not been established one way or another that this isn't a hoax. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deleted another comment.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were accused of sockpuppetry which was later refuted.

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused. I am the one who posted the evidence strongly suggesting no deliberate sockpuppetry (just my opinion, not an official ruling), but both of you did by your own admission post under multiple identities. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment deleted.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were then accused of copyright violations, which was also refuted.

Factually inaccurate. Suspected, not accused. I am the one who posted the suspicion. We still lack clear copyright permission, and the copyright question will be revisited if the page does not end up deleted for other reasons. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your notability is what they stake most of their arguments on, and even if you could get beyond that issue, you will be deleted over poor sourcing and or references.

True. Which is why you should focus on notability instead of accusations that are Factually inaccurate Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And still another goneIstheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The "stats" you mention are (were) simply a count he keeps on his talk page. You are reading way too much into an innocent comment, and are assuming bad faith. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gone..Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your user page for warnings based upon the above personal attack. Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The hoax, sockpuppetry, copyvio investigation are not untrue or refuted, they are still going on. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Herrman's work here is a substantial, positive contribution to the Wikipedia in keeping with the spirit of its mission and principles. The primary topics addressed in the article are surely notable. Those with serious interest in the primary topics addressed in this article would feel strange disputing their notability or significance. (I don't see that this in dispute; perhaps I've missed or misread some of the discussion). As for Mr. Herrman's own "notability" status I think he qualifies based on this criterion: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." (He seems notable enough among the 1100 or so scholars who have downloaded his work from SSRN, where he is among the top 10 most popular authors.)

I'm sure almost any article can be improved, especially one this large and complex. It might be better organized. Maybe the material belongs in more than one article. Perhaps the parties in this discussion would be interested in letting the (properly) vaunted Wiki collaborative improvement process address their concerns. Looking through the history of revisions to this articles I do not see any challenges at all to specific content begging for citations or references. All I can see is that editors have visited before and made minor format improvements. Trying to improve the article would be preferable to the role of censor (at least permitting others to attempt to improve the article, for those of you who are too skeptical or disinterested to participate further in the process).

Although I have used Wikipedia for many years I have not had occasion before now to become familiar with the article vetting process. I delayed weighing in on the current dispute until I had time to review Wikipedia's mission, principles, policies and guidelines (all that have been raised in this discussion). I grant that the proponents of this article's deletion sincerely feel that strict interpretation of the guidelines protects everyone's common interest in guarding the general worthiness and quality of the Wikipedia. Yet this seems a case which should be considered under one of Wikipedia five pillars, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules...the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule". When researching the reason (and in some cases the historical events) behind the guidelines I found nothing that would lead me to believe they should be applied in this case. (No "tin foil hat" material here. No conspiracy theories. No one claiming to have received personal messages from God. No venom directed at the hated Others.) The overall high quality of the material presented and its importance in several fields of human endeavor put it firmly within Wikipedia's purview. If it has defects which need addressing then those interested (including myself!) should address them in the collaborative process (assuming we are permitted to do so). Jcasey23 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— Jcasey23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"He seems notable enough among the 1100 or so scholars who have downloaded his work from SSRN, where he is among the top 10 most popular authors." You sure about that? A search on SSRN reveals that Herrman's most popular paper has been downloaded a total of 117 times, while the most popular papers there have been downloaded well over 5,000 times. Mildly Mad^T_C 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apology for the typo in my comment, regarding the SSRN ranking. That should have been written something like "where he is in the top 10 percent of the authors with the most downloads." Jcasey23 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That figure should have been stated as a percent. Top left of every author page on SSRN there is a ranking. On the search page there is the parent figure for the number of current writers on board. The division results in the percentage. My percent is ca. 8% of the cumulative total (16 years of SSRN postings).Mr man1951 (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clause in WP:Prof that indicates that downloads contribute to notability. Downloads are easily gamed. Only citations contribute. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The 'percentage' you cite is meaningless. You cannot divide a ranking based only on eligible contributors by a total based on all contributors. See here for how the ranking is derived. Also, citing yourself isn't much of an indication of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a busy couple of days...have their been any actual comments about this article's merits buried in all the drama? It needs refactoring and reliable references, and the usual sources aren't turning up any helpful citations for the biography of Charles S. Herrman. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and point of order − That page to SSRN to which we are referred [AndyTheGrump] not only does not explain how to compute a comparative ranking but does do something I am happy he has allowed us all to observe, as per this excerpt:

SSRN provides rankings based on a number of measures. These rankings are meant to complement other measures of an author’s scholarly impact.... SSRN’s rankings can inform your thinking about the popularity and scholarly influence of an author’s work. They provide valuable data not previously available.

Now it seems to me this makes matters fairly clear. These data are intended as a component of notability. Not going to be easy to challenge this interpretation... But hey, go for it. Mr man1951 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of establishing notability for Wikipedia the source has to be independent. Blog entries and letters to the editor? You can create those yourself. Papers on SSRN? No peer review, so you can get as many ppers on there as you wish. Non-peer-reviewed book? You can put as many of those on Amazon.com as you can afford. Downloads fron SSRN? You and your friends can download the same paper again and again.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than you and your friends think you are notable? Nope. Not a shred. Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is all the grumbling about here? Mr. Herrman is quite notable, and in the very nature of what he is notable for, paradigmatics, he has already gotten a giant head start over everyone here. Not to toot his horn for him but when was the last time you all have bothered to do a looksee into the history of western culture, especially in its philosophic foundations (which underlies its subsequent scientific/mathematical ones, all of which were originally considered part and parcel of the self-same philosophic tradition, which is also still their constant guardian and reformer)? Yes Charles, it is me, the pupil of yours who ever-fails to control the structure of his sentences, both written and spoken, and who ever-exceeds you in eccentricity of expression wherever it happens to count against his written papers, yet has gotten A after A regardless, though often with your help. I write thusly to differentiate my writings from yours lest I awaken tomorrow with the odd feeling of being a sock.

Charles is a man who has earned quite a bit of respect from many whom I have witnessed first hand to be men who give respect not lightly at all, and this as far back as I have known him from back where I met him first, in Oklahoma City, my home town. I was constantly and still am constantly searching for the ultimate nature of reality (beyond the intimations of the obvious details we all commonly surmise with our astute five senses...), and in that process I have had to put up a sort of ever-evolving filter on my efforts so that my limited time and ability can wrest the most truth out of one lifetime for the greatest benefit, which happens to be an aesthetic benefit. In that process I spent many years reading voluminously in subjects most central to my interest, namely philosphy and psychology, religion, law, and economics. By Mr. Herrman's insistent persuasion I finally did finish four years of college with a 4.0, but didn't find the education that I received at UT to be worth nearly as much as the studies I had previously undertaken with Mr. Herrman personally, although the degree that formal studies at the university may endow one with would carry more weight when looking for a job. In the search for the beautiful and good truth that has been the actual philosophic tradition of the west since Socrates and some many before have shown it, I say in that grand and happy search that I have found no other man deserving of the notworthy and rarely applicable title "philosopher", either living or dead, if Mr. Herrman is not himself to be included in the top ten among them. But that perhaps should only be taken in the "light" in which it is best appreciated, which is my own light, the light of my own experience of the man and his work. I'll be damned if you can trot on his name and his work and say it is not noteworthy.

But my understanding of what makes Charles Herrman's work in philosophy "noteworthy" is not limited to my personal opinion. I did not make high marks in philosophy under some rather strict professors for four years at UT just flippantly offering my opinion, nor was my work unreadable to them, nor is Mr. Herrman's work (or other writing) "incoherent". Mr. Herrman's Paradigmatics fills a necessary and gaping void in so many areas besides pure philosophy precisely because it does so in philosophy itself. It is likely that after so many centuries of metaphysicians proclaiming all future philosophers' thoughts answering to their grand presentation of "how reality really is", that finally someone might actually make some progress in this particular area. It would not be unlikely that this area of progress in philosophy would be a very narrow road to walk, with very great ramifications if walked correctly. It would require a very exacting and detailed methodology. It would have to answer to all the history of philosophy, east and west, in a coherent manner. It would have to explain much within and beyond philosophy, to include why its own existence as the preferred method of explanation took so long to come about. It would also have to have some hard-hitting practical applications, immediately, both in the hard and softer sciences. Mr. Herrman's work does all of this and he has already made clear just how he has done this in many sources which were disconnected rather unethically from his entry to Wikipedia. This should be redressed.

Ranging from work in pure metaphysics and "metalogic", to ethics and aesthetics, Mr. Herrman has created a systematic way to present thoughts in these areas which are very difficult to present, not to mention within areas of thought which by their nature are extremely difficult to cogently understand and present at all. His work is a direct and unique, and VERY noteworthy contribution to these areas and not only did that distinguished Professor Hartshorne think so, so do I. My work in these areas is not yet made public, but I can guarantee you that in order to solve the "Problem of Evil" you will not be able to casually walk over Mr. Herrman's methodology for synthesizing a coherent presentation of many-faceted and complex relationships between unity and plurality, among other metaphysical principles, nor can you overstep his analysis of the primary physical expressions of power and their relationships to numericity and increasingly to certain constants which unfold those relationships in a way that points right back to metaphysical relationships already well developed in Mr. Herrman's system. It cannot be casually dismissed merely because it is not plastered over some arbitrary number of your favorite mainstream science or philosophy magazines, tucked away in this or that peer reviewed journal, or so forth. It is also not decided by whatever meets someone's criteria for "Gabriels Horn". While yes, if the APA suddenly came to their senses about what this man is doing and gave him the gavel long enough to hear him out and even interact with him instead of ignore him it would be a lot more like Gabriel tooting his horn to announce the arrival of the philosophic apocolypse (and that might be appropriate), but that is not required, and often truth steals its way into the world more like a theif in the night. The point is that this matter is not fundamentally decided by recognition from others who often are too caught up in their own perilous relationship to academic success to be bothered with recognizing "another" genius working right next door to them in the same field, much less possibly towering over them in his contributions. This has happened before in the history of many fields, and this would not be the first time an independent scholar has done great work and been relatively ignored by the mainstream. That challenge is a non-challenge.

Content decides the matter here, as well as his value to others, and if these have not been substantively challenged by anyone, and I don't see how those points have, then Mr. Herrman's Wikipedia entry concerning his work as a philosopher should remain to be properly edited by all those lights who have something worthwhile to illuminate concering those noteworthy contributions of his, and should otherwise be left alone by others except for whatever benign assistance they may have to offer as to protocols of proper presentation in the open source that is Wikipedia. I haven't seen any of that helpfulness here so far, and that is an indication of a spiteful, antagonistic spirit in the proceedings.Saltylemon (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltylemon (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Saltylemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And once again, a newly-created account turns up here to tell us how 'notable' Herrman's work is, utterly ignoring the fact that we don't give a ~~rats rear-end~~ hoot about their opinion - Wikipedia establishes notability based on criteria which rely on published reliable sources - and for an article of this nature the criteria are clear enough. Unless Herrman's work has been published in properly peer-reviewed independent sources (and evidently it hasn't), he isn't 'notable' by the only criteria that matter - ours. Regardless of the number of 'keep' postings we get, policy trumps opinion - especially the opinions of multiple newly-created accounts all using remarkably similar language to tell us what a marvel Herrman is. This isn't a vote, and we couldn't override policy if we wanted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that Saltymon understands what I have elaborated above 'till blue in the face and without anybody bearing up to the reality of the implications, perhaps simply because they are afraid of those implications (certainly many academics are scared witless of Herrman and are happy to take him as a test-case against the desires of those loopy and clueless independent scholars). Both of us apparently understand, as others here do not or care not to, what Charles Hartshorne long ago said —

"One thing I've decided is that ordinary people always know when a philosopher is a great philoso¬pher. Ordinary people can sense this person is important. They always do that with every great person. If you asked them to explain just why, they'd have a terrible lime. That always happens. All the great people have been recognized. It is never clear what makes this person great but people know." (The Good Life, 1998, "Philosophy (at) 101")

The notability in Wikipedia guidelines that in several locations specify criteria of worthiness and significance, etc., are what we all are trying to beat home to folks here who praise themselves following rules but only those they deem worthy of their personal accommodation. The FACT REMAINS - get this through your noggins, one and all - the Wikipedia POLICY (does anybody know what that word means?) includes, mentions, cites, references, declares, notes, says (have we gone far enough for the slowpokes?) that these notability criteria are valid even if other criteria are acknowledged and more rigorous still.

NO ONE here has presumed to be a wanton lunatic. All we have requested is that the facts be honored, which decidedly that HAVE NOT BEEN. We argue simply that there should be a category for the 'Independent Scholar' and that it be provisional for a few years in order that third party verification can be offered and adduced. There is surely nothing wrong with that. To say that we can garner that while the page is torn down rather misses the point that proceeds all others. Were it not for the impossibility (nearly so) of gaining notoriety where academics maintain a monopoly on scholarly resources, there are no remaining routes for the rest of humanity with quality material to show to a broad public. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to be first and foremost to deal with the material that is worthy and significant and THEN worry, within prescribed guidelines, how to determine whether full notability will have been attained? To deny this is to deny the facts both of sensibility and reality, and that there are too many here willfully willing to do that does not say much for their humanity any more for their attention to facts to say nothing of their own stated guidelines. Whereat, I am frankly disgusted, as I have every reason and right to be.Mr man1951 (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the thing, though. The method Wikipedia uses for determining "material that is worthy and significant", is the notability criteria. You write, "We argue simply that there should be a category for the 'Independent Scholar' and that it be provisional for a few years in order that third party verification can be offered and adduced." However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or showcasing, and Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Since these are your stated objectives, you should find another venue to post your material; GuyMacon posted a few good candidates. If you wish to try to get an "independent scholars" category in Wikipedia, you are free to propose it at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. Mildly Mad^T_C 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sir. With all due respect, this is precisely where your assumption is wrong. Mildly Mad is correct. Essentially, the burden is upon the topic itself (person, thing, event, etc.) to be demonstrably notable before being allowable fodder for Wikipedia, not the other way around. You are clearly frustrated by what you perceive to be barriers excluding you from the academic enterprise and for that I'm very sorry. Be that as it may, WP is nothing more than an encyclopedia. It is decidedly not a means to publish research that its author feels has been unfairly kept out of mainstream academia, even if that author testifies as to its "high quality". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fact (incontrovertible, dudes): Wikipedia has a dual tier of notability criteria confused by an overarching conception that ALL things should/must have third-party verifiability. DO NOT bother arguing with this unless you enjoy being called a moron. The problem is not so much with sincerety on either side of this divide (hopefully) but with the construction of very poorly delineated guidelines that invite confabulation and interpretations that serve specialized interests at the inadvertent (best case scenario) of others, myself included. Now either the blanket statement is intended to cover all bases or it isn't. If it is, then the statement above that the lower tier IS dependent on the other can be said, BUT NOT LOGICALLY. Logically, you CANNOT have a statement at top in categorical diagreement with a sub-statement. That doesn't fly in any textbook of logic I have ever seen or ever expect to see. Since I am the philosopher here, how about trying to take my word for it.

I am NOT trying to be an asshole. I am not trying to self-advertize. I am tgrying to get you folks to understand that it is in your best interests - in Wikipedia's best interest - to permit certain categories of material to enter into at the lower tier of notability (which is clearly stated as permissible) on condition that the canopy doctrine is held up as the myth -- which I define as an ideal rarely attained in reality. Yes, it can be interpreted in a negative manner as offering advetising space, but then again, isn't that common to everything here? At stake in what is worthy/significant, and by any lights that need not and usually does not deppend on a canopy regulation admitting only a higher tier of criteria.

It's a little like allowing slavery to be in the constitution 'till somebody like a Lincoln comes around. Only in this case it is yourselves who denigrate my work to the parallel with slavery. That's fine with me, each to his own. But either you tell your administrators to eliminate the lower criterion or use it intelligently. You cannot logically have it both. Further, what on earth is your real problem with an important thinker having noteworthy material on Wikipedia on a provisional basis? You cannot put forth a truly reasonable argument except the selfish one that we are special and want what we want and will selectively apply the rules to get what we want. But notice something here that could land you all in significant difficulties down the road. What you imply is a willingness to forgo existing guidelines (logically considered, admitting that the other is a possible if unlikely view) and permit the result of what? Of a monopoly of academic people here as already exists elsewhere. That may be comfortable enough for you, but what of others? What is it here you cannot or will not see? Nothing here hurts Wikipedia, it only can bruise some egos. Can't you forgo your egos long enough to allow others the same real rights to that lower tier threshold? Apparently not thus far. I hope that changes along the way.Mr man1951 (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be trying to be an asshole - indeed, I don't think you are one. You are however being somewhat foolish in arguing here that Wikipedia should change its notability criteria. This cannot happen. Policy changes aren't arrived at in article deletion discussions. We cannot ignore policy, even if we want to. As for 'forgoing our egos', after you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page will not be deleted because "Everyone that defends him (Mr Herrman) is useless and or another sockpuppet because its a new account or some new people that you never heard of." Yes, some here have expressed those opinions, but those are ordinary users, not the deleting admins. The only reason to delete the page is because it fails to meet Wikipedia's clearly-defined notability standards. Given your own history of personal attacks, legal threats and revealing personal information, you are hardly in a position to criticize others Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Herrman has already admitted to deception in the service of his article ("However, in desiring to get the site built up to the point where I could defend my principles, it was necessary to practice some deception", posted here). Rest assured that the closing admin will recognize all these socks for what they are and will also weigh the many policy-based "delete" arguments against the seemingly endless special-pleading. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factually untrue. You have posted as User 70.125.148.34 as recently as two days ago. Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We were primarily speaking about the most recent puppets, Jcasey23 and Saltylemon. I feel sorry for the closing admin who is going to have to wade through all of this nonsense. Nobody here, including myself, has any intention of taking up with you off-wiki, so it's best just to drop that too. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Gone.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read your talk page. Your belligerence is about to get you blocked. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I personally am going to stop responding to Istheleftright and Charles S. Herrman, on the grounds that the "conversation" is one way. They say something, someone refutes it, and they say it again as if nobody replied. At this point, all we are doing is making more work for the closing admim. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gone. This concludes my own deletion of my comments stated here on this page which I was wrong on most of them to say. I violated Wikipedia policies, violated Wikipedia standards, and violated the general netiquette here. For that I am truly apologetic and sorry to all who had to wade through my posts. Many apologies to all concerned.. Good to talk with you too Guy. Thank you and all for the help here on this page and with Mr Herrman's work. Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricola44. --Crusio (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of other editor's comments[edit]

I'm not entirely clear what has happened, or of who is responsible, but it appears that somehow comments by contributors have been deleted by later edits (e.g, one of mine: [16]). this is totally unacceptable, if done intentionally, and if accidental needs to be rectified immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the above - it does however appear that comments have been moved around, and no longer appear in the order they were entered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Mr. Herrman's supporters[edit]

The Internet is a big place, and there are other Wikis where this material may be welcome. Many Wikis exist that don't have the same notability criteria as Wikipedia, Here are some suggestions:

Biographicon: http://www.biographicon.com/

Scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/

Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/

Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Philosophy (for Mr. Herrman's books, not his biography)

Also see: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.

You may wish to cut and paste the Wikimarkup for this article to a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad and save it in three places along with the images from the page. That way it will be easy to submit it to one of the above Wikis.

Just because a page does not meet Wikipedia's standards, that is no reason why it should disappear from the Internet. Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wow. A spelling flame. How original. Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

The user who I was responding to contacted me off Wiki (which I have no problem with, that's why I use my real name and give out my mailing address and phone number) and apologized, and he deleted this and other comments that violate civility guidelines. We had a nice talk about finding Mr. Herrman a good place to host his material, including how to run your own Wiki. I consider all issues between us to be resolved. Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that Charles S. Herrman has been editing my user page (not my user talk page - my user page). It's almost as if these two are going through the policies and seeing how many they can violate before getting themselves banned. Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Sir I wouldn't know the difference between a user page and a talk page if the two were at opposite poles of the universe. Not only am I dyslexic, I am well meaning (at times, lol) and was only trying to send Guy Macon some notability material. I don't think I was entirely successful because I had to resort to asking another person for advice. I am a philosopher and evidently not a Wikipedian editor!! Please forgive/excuse the inadvertent trespass. The only thing that might surpass the disposition to assign negative motives is the refusal to appreciate that using the facts of your guidelines need not mean that you have to change them in the slightest. I very much approve the general framework of these guidelines and the obvious intent to be both complete and fair. It just nonpluses me that a fact can be so disturbing and unsettling to obviously well meaning and intelligent folks. No one need change a dot in you guidelines, only CLARIFY them so as to maximize their truest utility. No one is advocating that Wikipedia suffer the death of a loved guideline.Mr man1951 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, and let me say that, looking at the above, I was way too harsh. Sorry about that. I apologize for my rude tone, and for not assuming that it was a simple error. Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we request that this AfD be closed prematurely?[edit]

Given the repeated violations of WP:NPA, the complete lack of evidence that Herrman meets our requirements for notability, and the insistence of his supporters on inappropriately using this page as a forum for advocating changes to Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that the most sensible approach to prevent a further escalation might be to request that the AfD be closed prematurely, and for the usual assessment be then made - there seems little likelihood of any new input that could materially affect the outcome. What do other contributors think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no notability claims, other than by Herrman himself, and a few (?) supporters who clearly either don't understand the meaning of the word 'notable', or don't care. As for 'talking sense', I've seen precious little of that - just vacuous puffery and meaningless arguments about things that are of no consequence to the debate. That isn't 'talking sense' by any reasonable criterion. Since you have nothing to add which relates to the Wikipedia deletion discussion process, I suggest you go troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I feel for the closing admin who has to wade through all this WP:TLDR discussion but the absence of reliably sourced material about the subject in Google news archive, Google books, and Google scholar is very telling, as is the mass of citations in the article most or all of which do not appear to be reliable sources that are actually about the subject. Does not pass WP:PROF, does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~ "a few (?) supporters who clearly either don't understand the meaning of the word 'notable', or don't care." — AndyTheGrump
Andy, we are so glad to know that there is people like you who understand everything. This would be great, but it is a pity that human knowledge is at least 5% of the whole. Who supports who? That's your POV. I fear that the argument here is not whether the person in question is notable or not, but I see some "editors" who want to win at all costs.
Anyway, there is an entry about Charles S. Herrman on the 15th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "[...] is a structuralist philosopher making his home in Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer, said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician'" — Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed.
Isn't this enough? Pay attention that Charles Hartshorne's quote about Herrman has been tagged with ((citation needed)).
Again, "CHARLES HERRMAN is a theorist who has developed a cultural typology to replace the shame-guilt thesis of Ruth Benedict." —The San Francisco Sentinel published by The San Francisco Publishing Co, LLC.
And again, "As a philosopher and behavioral theorist, Charles has written hundreds of essays and contributed to a variety of disciplines, including law, sociology and psychology. All this despite having autism, bipolar disorder, dyslexia and Asperger's Syndrome. He has made learning about his illnesses a major focus, which he says has enabled him to manage them as well as he does." —KOOP (91.7 FM) (aired on July 14, 2010)
I would like to add that Herrman is one of the few Structural Metaphysics Philosophers in existence (a well known luminary in his field). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think this is the first time someone has brought forward any evidence of reliable sources that support notability . I think I speak for several editors when I say we were/are skeptical of the notability claims because we could really only find self-published sources on the subject, while editors involved in the article were basically (pardon the over-simplification) just claiming "he's really smart and deserves to be recognized" without providing any supporting Verification. In short, I think a lot of us smelled WP:MASK. The article still needs a lot of work (lots of WP:OR, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:NOTMYSPACE), ~~but in light of Pjoef's sources, I'd be comfortable with Keeping the article, and perhaps splitting the content off in to separate articles (if it's notable, that is!).~~ (withdrawn in light of below discussion 14:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC) ) Mildly Mad^T_C 11:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to actually have external sources regarding Herrman, but I'm less than convinced that they actually establish the notability required. Herrman apparently does not show up on Google scholar, appears never to have published peer-reviewed articles, and otherwise seems to be only notable for his absence if his work is of the significance claimed. Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica nor the San Francisco Sentinel will necessarily have any specialist knowledge of 'Structural Metaphysics Philosophy', and as such can only be considered tertiary sources. If it can be established that Herrman's work has received recognition by others in the field, then perhaps an article might be justified - not however the long-winded and weasel-word filled present text though, which is anything but encyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement--it's reassuring to know that Herrman's not just 'zis guy, you know, but we should have some concrete indication (citations, reviews, etc) that his work is recognized by his peers as a contribution to the field. Mildly Mad^T_C 14:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the Britannica ref has been added to the article. Given the circumstances, I'm sure I'll be forgiven a bit of skepticism. Pjoef, could you please furnish the specifics of this reference (e.g. article title and page numbers) of the reference you are describing? That way we can quickly have a look and have a proper, substantive discussion regarding its merits. Likewise for the Sentinel article. My view would be to forget about a community radio station broadcast because that reaches a bit too far into the world of ephemera and would be difficult to verify. Parenthetically, I can't accept at face value claims such as he is "a well known luminary in his field" if nobody is aware of his work. Seems to be an obvious contradiction. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've found the SF Sentinel one here. This is an op-ed written by Herrman. The quote given above by Pjoef, is nothing more than the byline of the article. In full, it is this: "CHARLES HERRMAN is a theorist who has developed a cultural typology to replace the shame-guilt thesis of Ruth Benedict. Email Charles Herrman at cherrman@gmail.com." A few other op-eds in SFS carry the same byline. These are not articles written by others about Herrman – these are basically Herrman showering praise on himself. Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The specific quote offered above by Pjoef about a Herrman bio in Encyclopedia Britannica seems to actually come from Herrman's book "published" by VDM (essentially a vanity publisher, according to our own article here). Specifically, it is Herrman again on himself. Amazon reports this as: "About the Author is a structuralist philosopher making his home in Austin, Texas, U.S.A. 'Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer,' said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician' -- Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed." So, it seems the world's greatest living metaphysician is Hartshorne, not Herrman. This is borne out by several other websites, e.g. the Google-cached version of Charles Herrman's Facebook page here, having the quote "Charles Hartshorne, once considered 'the world’s greatest living metaphysician' (Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed.) called Herrman 'a brilliant thinker and writer'." Tracing back one step further, Hartshorne's only pronouncement of Mr. Herrman as "a brilliant thinker and writer" seems to exist in the form of a short, polite letter of introduction written by the former when he was 100 years old, as I already described above (see letter at Herrman's personal website). In summary, I now believe Pjoef's claims of documentation in Britannica and the Sentinel that demonstrate notability are baseless. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum. I'll note how the VDM blurb "About the Author" is very cleverly worded to imply that the quote comes from Encyclopedia Britannica. It would be easy to be taken-in and perhaps that was the confusion. FYI: The 15th edition was first published in 1974, when Herrman was 23 years old. I would second Andy's motion to close this. We've now explored every nook and cranny of this case, in the end finding only puff. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It is customary for commercial houses, whether print or web, to ask any author for a suggested bio. Naturally, therefore, they take and modify what they are given, but they also have their own fact-checking when they are reputable, and if memory serves me, the owner-editor constructed his own take from the material given him. I might also add that a credible publisher does not desire to have its reputation sullied by fabrications any more than the holier-than-thou academics who complain viciously the moment an independent shows them up without third-party peer-reviewed references. It is largely an ego and status game and a whole lot less agreeable a source of credentials than it is made out to be, as any real scholar has long been aware. Agricola may fool some of the folks some of the time but he is out of his element in present company. Sorry, but oh so respectfully yours...

And I might also add that closing matters at this point is somewhat premature, for reasons brought out above. Perhaps someone wants things closed down before the evidence gets embarrassing. So while I have collected some material I cannot figure how to conveniently make it immediately available except as a file to be emailed, and that doesn't sound likely. So let me summarize the prospects that other people and sources can later verify: 1) Newspaper account listing Herrman as "Philosopher and Behavioral Theorist"; 2) NEH proposal backed by Peirce scholar Joseph Ransdell (late); 3) Notable law book publisher requesting reprint permission for, of all the cotton-pickin worthless items to show interest in, damn(!!) an SSRN article (NO!!!!!). The actual email transcript is available; geez, it's really terribly official, almost officious; 4) Reliance on Herrman's theoretical work in offices, stewardship and ethics, Master's thesis; 5) Mention of Herrman in a "Capture your Flag" interview with a 'notable' Austin entrepreneur who mentions he learned what he knows of stewardship from Herrman (see Bijoy Goswami; 6) Lecture for a local ethics/religious group, recording available; 7) Letters asking Herrman to give lectures for college classes by a significant microbiologist who worked with Norman Anderson of centrifuge and proteonomics fame; 8) Letter indicating great praise for works on stewardship by the long-time proprietor of "Stewardship Resources", once upon a time of Oklahoma City; 9) Herrman works with Panagiotis Stefanides, an aeronautical engineer with patents and publications who works in number theory and whose communications with Herrman are revealing to say the least; 10) Letter from a superadministrator of an academic website asking Herrman for a recommendation for a position developing ethics guidelines for the entire research of a major university; 11) There is more, I just really don't recall everything because, frankly, I don't use them much except askance references. Some are mentioned in the Charles S. Herrman page, some not.

I am confident of two things: People who are aware of my work will not infrequently use words like 'luminary'; second, those not willing to suffer competition with their intellectual betters will NEVER cotton to anything except peer-reviewed sources. Let the administrators and public vote as they will, perhaps with traffic figures (yes, do check them out as of late); and don't forget either than other Wikipedia articles where Herrman's work is of notability have received nary a negative remark. That Herrman dude must be a fake, don't you suppose? Or is there some element of pique racing about these exchanges? But all delivered here in the greatest sincerity and respect as language befitting a very civil - but wrong-minded - academic crowd and the Wikipedia folks wanting to share some of that ego testosterone on behalf of what I doubt not is a sincere desire that Wikipedia be the best it can be. And I am all for that, as anyone who knows me will attest. Mr man1951 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Herrman, more than one bona fide professor has weighed-in here, giving reasoned, evidence-based arguments of how this article fails to fulfill the WP notability policy, while you continue to pontificate in stilted language about your intellectual superiority over the entire academic enterprise and shake your fist for being shut out of it. Frankly sir, I'm embarrassed for you. Please continue your name-calling and bombastic speech. I'll now join some of the others on the sidelines and watch as this AfD winds down to its predictable conclusion. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Is there any area on Wikipedia, comparable to WP:Lamest edit wars, for listing "funniest AfD discussions"? If so, may I nominate this one? Oh, and of course, Delete as not meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability and verifiability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and still one day to go, anything can happen - frankie^MR (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Encyclopædia Britannica reference comes from Amazon. The radio interview is available here (listen). For the San Francisco Sentinel visit this link. In my humble opinion, Sentinel's quotes are not so important, but the fact that he has published on it is. On the other hand, the Britannica entry should be very important because it is an encyclopedia and that quotation is used in the article. So, I hope to visit a library very soon and to check out the reference to the 15th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Herrman and "his supporters" (isn't the term "supporters" offensive?) to provide this kind of references/sources and to post all of them into this discussion, but I'm not sure they have understood me correctly, probably because they are "new" to Wikipedia. I know Mr man1951 was or still is in contact with Guy Macon. Probably, Guy Macon knows more than me about those evidences of notability. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Agricola44 has already pointed out above, the Encyclopædia Britannica quote isn't about Herrman, and the San Francisco Sentinel quote is merely a blog byline almost certainly written by Herrman himself. Please read others' responses before reposting the same links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hermann has not contacted me off Wiki. He has posted to my talk page and (by mistake) to my user page, but none of those posts contained any actual evidence of notability, just the sort of "I am superior, you are all in a conspiracy against me" you see from him here. User Istheleftright did contact me by phone (which is fine with me, that's why I use my real name and publish my mailing address and phone number) and apologized for his behavior, which I accepted. Not that I was particularly offended - I do understand the frustration that comes from making the transition from the total anarchy of the rest of the internet to a forum where one is required to be civil.

The claim is that Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition called Charles Hartshorne “the world’s greatest living metaphysician" (Britannica makes no mention of Charles S. Herrman) and that Hartshorne called Herrman "a brilliant thinker and writer." The latter claim is documented on Hermann's web site at [ http://www.csherrman.com/charles-hartshorne/ ] and appears to be a letter of reference. All very interesting, but even if confirmed, not evidence of notability.

On amazon.com, The "About the Author" section of Herrman's self-published book [ http://www.amazon.com/Office-its-Stewardship-Professional-Conduct/dp/3639190084/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1%20Amazon ] says "Mr. Herrman is a brilliant thinker and writer," said Charles Hartshorne, 'the world's greatest living metaphysician' -- Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed." This paragraph (which like every other public mention of Herrman, appeears to have been generated by Herrman himself) is, in my opinion, a purposeful deception worded so as to confuse the reader into thinking Britannica called Hermman brilliant. Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Tiers argument, reprised - Clearly I am frustrated. Pjoef's assessment of the Sentinel material was correct, the rest of the recent remarks are caviling and will not be dignified with further comment. Because the site has given me serious problems recently with posting, I regret to leaving everything 'as is', no cleaning. Too much work for a redo.

Mr. Herrman has already determined the validity of a fact, namely, that there is a two-tier standard for “notability”. Evidently that finding has received neither direct verification nor presumptive indirect verification, at least not amongst certain editors and academics.

But by having thus characterized the matter we restate not only a useful methodology adopted and justified by Herrman, but one that he previously demonstrated as useful in assessing the contribution of Charles S. Peirce to metaphysics (no references will be given for evidently they will be denigrated). That is to say, Mr. Herrman concluded that the Peircean system involves two processes, each a method consisting of two different but related modes of reality-testing. The first determines the "validity" of the attributive sign for a given referent; the second determines "verification" of attributes of the referent independent of the sign. Thus there is a determination of fact or truth amounting to "validation" of a sign or label so that what we say is actually what we refer to (or what we refer to is actually what our statements refer to), and then there is, as it were, third party "verification" of/for defining (and other) criteria. (It was this explication that led Peirce scholar Joseph Ransdell to tell Herrman in a private communication - which probably can be located - that the latter was very probably making a significant contribution to Peircean studies.)

Of course, verification processes are of two sorts, namely, direct and indirect. Should indirect sources be sufficient in number and/or quality, a third-party observer can reasonably rest assured of true verifiability, meaning s/he can presume truth predicated upon the indirect verification as opposed to requiring direct verification. "Thus where we either validate or employ direct verification we determine truth or facticity; where we rely on indirect sourcing/referencing we are permitted the luxury of a presumed truth or facticity". The relevance of this point is found, for example, when we look back on Van Gogh’s works, understanding that while they were validly brilliant at the time, such artistic merit took a while to receive indirect verification. We would say, in retrospect, that had matters been correctly conceived, his art work certainly "deserved recording by others" for being worthy or significant (to those with sensitivity to recognize talent by their own lights) and thus ‘notable’ even if not by the criteria of today’s exhaustive take-no-prisoners peer-review process.

If I may (by way of apology for a long introduction) now demonstrate the argument, to wit –

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Now suppose, in light of the introductory explication, we take the operative word in the above excerpt to be, precisely, ""ꞌpresumed""ꞌ. Note that the "Wikipedia" guidelines consider it the same –

“"Presumed"” means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion [my emphasis]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability (General notability guidelines)

We will accordingly take this as denoting "indirect verification". We are now reasonably permitted to inquire whether we find Wikipedia guidelines that we can interpret as regulating "validation" by determination. We wish first to determine wherein Mr. Herrman falls in the broader classificatory schema. We find that there is a matter of possible dispute as to whether he be considered an ‘academic’ or something else.

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0 (under ‘Academics’)

While this suffices colloquially, "Wikipedia" appears to discriminate more carefully as between academics and others, whereat we shall attend to the following by preference -

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ( = listing as follows: Academics, Books, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, Sports and athletes, and Web content). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

We shall follow the sub-category ‘people’ and there find ‘Creative professionals’ (Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and others), where we can classify Mr. Herrman as, for example, an author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0

We repeat what has before been excerpted -

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0

Again we selectively assess the operative terms: to deserve attention or [deserve] to be recorded. From the Van Gogh example we recall the discussion of "determination of validity", noting that it need not imply what is "presumed verifiable/verified". In this connection it was earlier determined that such guidelines go beyond merely suggesting – they clearly elucidate - a two-tier level for notability regardless what agenda-seekers pontificate from the rooftops. We have just observed a quoted guideline stating a doctrine of notability via worthiness, where select criteria of verifiability (as between ‘popular’ or ‘academic’, "fame" and "popularity" are different not in kind but only in degree. Separately or together they speak "not" to validity but only to verifiability).

Creative professionals obtain notability by numerous avenues, the two of relevance to our discussion being –

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Will any fair-minded person deny these to Mr. Herrman? Does anyone have the slightest rationale for denying that these criteria are of "validity" (the lower tier), but are nonetheless stated "Wikipedia" criteria for “notability”? A parallel in the present scuffle over notability is with freedom-fighters waging revolution over and against arbitrary authority. The unverified credibility of their "validity" rests within their bosoms until the rest of us ‘get it’. According to certain academic dictates of methodology, the dictatorships will win every time. What are the indicants that authority has become arbitrary, capricious, fixated, encrusted or rigidly paradigmatic (in Kuhnian terms)? Three signs tend to predominate: 1) Claims are made "ex cathedra" so that opposition is not brooked, and disagreement is ridiculed instead of confronted with evidence; 2) Rules govern over reason, for rules are generally favorable to the powers able to interpret and enforce them, and 3) Disputation, when it occurs, proceeds with accusations that others exemplify or instigate what they in fact represent as an agenda, with the corollary that accurate accusations to them are rebuffed as ‘red herrings’.

Does anything just enumerated remind anybody of anything? As for Wikipedia guidelines:

Note 14: Wikipedia editors have been known to reject nominations for deletion that have been inadequately researched. Research should include attempts to find sources which might demonstrate notability, and/or information which would demonstrate notability in another manner.

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the "existence" of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0 (Failing all criteria)

Mr. Herrman has had advocates making note of a problem here, one that the guidelines declare valid and verified. Mr. Herrman only yesterday completed a listing to assist in such normative accountability but for want of time and ability did not proffer all available citations and evidences. Has anyone stepped forward to assist the process or extend its time? Even more important for the administrators to consider is the crass discrimination against independent scholarship that will be vindicated if the Charles S. Herrman page is removed. It isn’t that independents should get a free pass; it is instead that they deserve equal rights to research and recognition, and aren’t getting it; they deserve validation which cannot and will not happen so long as vested interests in cupidity and narrow-mindedness dictate the fact and degree of verification methodology; in short, unaffiliated scholarship cannot pretend to accountability if validity is denied them via unaccountable rules of verification. Worthiness deserves the opportunity for verification. Put otherwise, what is reasonably validated as worthy is owed the consideration of a public airing. No less than with art, other gifts of the intellect are deserving of display, remark and comment, which is what most of us thought "Wikipedia" was largely about.Mr man1951 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.— Attribution of Hartshorne in 15th Britannica attested here.Mr man1951 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for that last reference it only goes to confirm a statement from a body of reference about Hartshorne, who isn't in question. It also isn't actually in question whether Hartshorne did expressed praise of Herrman or not, because it requires for the matter at hand to be settled before it requires verification. The matter at hand whether that praise and any other information about Herrman put all together add up to something that has a mark that bears recording. The reason there is no research is that we are not qualified to elaborate on any of the subjects we keep, and even if we would think we had the proficiency, any material produced would be subject to the same burdens of fallacy, subjectivity and deviance that normal production is subject to, which invariable tips the scale of neutrality astray, even in those cases where it actually doesn't. And even in the case that we were to accept our own production as qualified, then we would have a situation where the information references in cycles, of varying sizes. The same body would have had produced and validated one same item. It is a simil with having an opinion or not. WP doesn't. What is recorded is not the subject but someone else's opinion of the subject, which is why care is taken to identify the three burdens mentioned and release them. Reality is indeed what happens, but we cannot afford to listen to reality. We listen to the echo, and then again, the loud echo - frankie^MR (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie does really try. The convolutions do not beget accurate translation. But say what you will, this Frankie's brain is more engaged (like, in gear for the moment) than all the rest of you combined throughout this process. So let me do him some justice and try to tease some clarity from the morass. What he seems to be saying is that we might want to address the matter of whether material has valid worth but were we to attempt so we would ineluctably violate the tenets of neutrality. Now THAT, little ones, means something, but not entirely what you might think it does. Again I am reduced to the schoolmarm. The matter is now reduced to this, in fine: We have a tier one guideline that is fully valid and requests authorization to post based upon valid worth. The fact that this exists cannot be taken away or ignored even on the creds of an academic. The distinction now to be laid out is that between neutrality and a declaration of value. It will thus be argued, ho hum, that one cannot assess value without invalidating neutrality. Wrong. Neutrality is necessary in order to protect value, not the other way around. When neutrality is violated, others will be enabled to enlist valuations that cannot correctly be gainsaid or correctly verified, if only because there is no coming to the table with clean hands after a violation like that - which is of course why we value it so. But you simply cannot be lazy and avoid your fundamental responsibilities just because you can shout a rule from your caves. You have to learn that correctly assessing value is simply a guide for your public who will edit with their value(s) as being informed by yours. It is not a legal matter but a matter of guidance that supports the Wikipedia process of opening up worthy material to the public. The valuation whereby merit for posting is granted can also be taken away, and can also be improved with second tier sourcing. If you cannot do a valuation you can't adhere to the first tier guidelines. Either terminate those lower guidelines or use them correctly. That is what all of this boils down to. I leave this as a homework assignment: Determine how to gauge the value of a Van Gogh BEFORE it is a "Van Gogh". Does that valuation or its process, if done carefully, violate anything that neutrality could possibly suggest? Neutrality is what keeps the valuation process accountable. It isn't supposed to be an excuse to avoid the valuation. I have said it a few times before and I say it again. DO YOUR JOBS!! Valuations are the most important and helpful of all your functions partly because it depends upon the prerogative built into your office (which in part actually defines an office and which entitles legal protection both to officer and the protectable interest of the public - no reference as you would denigrate it). I wish you and Wikipedia the very best. Of course, the former depends much on how well you have learned your lessons this past week.Mr man1951 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further demonstration of how to produce patronising pseudo-learned off-topic waffle. I'll almost miss you when you are gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. Totally understandable, but Wikipedia's policies on civility and personal attacks do not have a "he deserved it!" exemption.

The question of relative intelligence is an interesting one if you divorce it from the individual making the claim. For example, is an intelligent person more likely or less likely to be educable? Consider a simple and easily explained concept: "if you disagree with Wikipedia policy, there is a place to criticize it and to try to get it changed. Arguing that notability policy should be changed here will not effect whether this page gets deleted for being non-notable" Would an intelligent person (in the general sense, not implying anything about anyone here) keep posting about how wrong the policy is after reading that? Or could it be that intelligence combined with arrogance leads to being intelligent, ineducable, and willfully ignorant? How would one distinguish such a case from the case of someone too stupid to understand such a concept who hides his low intelligence behind pseudo-intellectual nonsense? It's an interesting question, but alas off-topic for the present discussion. Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question of relative intelligence is an interesting one of you insert it into an appropriate environment – such as the present, for example. Mr. Herrman does not believe this to be the place to change rules or guidelines. In fact, he has refused to so much as ‘disagree with Wikipedia policy’. What he has done is to urge concerned Wikipedians to better present and characterize the selfsame guidelines that he has here frequently lauded for their excellence. A lack of clarification in these matters tends to be dangerous in the hands of the relatively unintelligent, who will, for reasons of agency, agenda, pique or pride, selectively interpret, oft times in conformity with peer-generated practice, whereat a tradition envelopes reason and a whole culture of imbecility is emboldened. Imagine the Wikipedia version of Enron to get my meaning more precisely. Now the relatively intelligent people who are specifically educated in matters recondite, logical, aesthetic and practical (not excluding law and culture) will evaluate all questionable practices with an eye to uncovering misinterpretations of otherwise good guidelines. This has always been the preferred solution, ensuring workable solutions and avoiding overcompensatory dispositions (as apparent with insecure types given too much time or authority and with something to prove that simply can’t be proved without evidence of valid worth – I did not say indirectly verified worth).

In sum, the issue was never the guidelines per se; it was, apart from presentiment, the unintelligent interpretation of them, always and only that. As for categorical intelligence, that for which, like 'speedy deletions' or a 'PROPed deletion', carries universal assent, Mr. Herrman, while preferring to keep matters just a tad this side of immodesty, did nonetheless lecture second year college students at age thirteen in physiology, develop the James-Langue concepts of chaining and itemizing a year later, and prepare a typed 100 page thesis a year after that, along with high finishes in science fairs, debate, public ceremonial speaking, all before college. It was never my intention to be in a position to berate your cupidity. Yes, Mr. Herrman turned out to be more than a mere editor here, but his agenda was at least modestly noble: freedom of access, freedom of delivering worthy materials – at risk of them coming down if second tier sourcing be not forthcoming. For your part, well, relative unintelligence may well be the least harsh way of stating the case.

A final, first person ending unscientific postscript: the notion that I ever made personal attacks is, I have long observed, far and away more common from those intimidated by their betters. Enough said. You had not ever earned any of my wit had you urged yourselves toward a more open, accepting, and above all, intelligent appraisal of the arguments and issues brought up here for discussion. But you did not. You can accuse me all day and into the night for being a bad person. Hell(!) - Einstein, Shaw, Russell, Hemingway and countless others have been such as to make me look condignly benign (to coin a phrase). So get over yourselves and live life instead of fretting every jitter that leaves you with less respect that you think God intended to shower upon you. Try stewardship for size. My mentor instructed me to steward my talents and to think always of the benefit to others. The validation of worthiness falls into that category, and Wikipedia has had ample opportunity to advantage itself of a similar stewardship. So call me bad, but call me fodder for Wikipedia. You managed to reverse them, scoring two wrongs and then declaring it all a right. Adieu all. Mr man1951 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, just so that there's no confusion by this off-topic post, that source does not mention Charles Herrman. It's about Charles Hartshorne, who is not germane to this discussion. Hope to be able to stay seated on the bench now for the short time we have left here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

None of which is of the slightest relevance to a debate on whether Herrman meets the standards on notability required by existing Wikipedia policy. Take your over-inflated ego elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above arguments are without merit. If Charles S. Herrman was notable (he clearly is not) all it would take to show that notability would be examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. No such coverage of Charles S. Herrman exists. End of story. It is time to delete the page. Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You're dangerously close to Wikilawyering here (using the letter of the rule to argue against the spirit of the rule), but I'm not going to bother going through point-by-point. What you really need to understand is this: The Five Pillars of Wikipedia (which are as incontrovertible as rules get here) state: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources". All of the evidence of notability that has been provided does not count as "reliable" because it has been found to be essentially Self-published. Also, please take note of the 5th Pillar of Wikipedia: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule". Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to delete the images too. In addition to the clear non-notability issues, we have never recieved clear permission to use the images{note} in this article, nor is it entirely clear that the editors who claim to who own the copyright actually own them. I just checked, and they are used nowhere else, so the easy solution is to remove them from wikimedia commons. Note: Zhuangzi-Butterfly-Dream.jpg is an exception; it is used by other pages and does not have any apparent copyright issues. Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletions from Wikimedia commons have to be done using the deletion process on commons; we can't decide them here. Additionally, there is no reason to expect that the admin who closes the AfD here will also be an admin on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like the proper thing to do is to post the concern at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (about halfway down the page is a link with the text "Go to today's section" with instructions. Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola. What a trainwreck. Ray^Talk 02:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. If anyone so desires, a merge may be proposed on the article's talk page, but consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the content. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind-hydro station[edit]

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

I considered this first as a speedy under WP:CSD#A7 as it's so terse it's impossible to tell what the article is about. If it's about pumped storage, we already have an article on that. The Canary Islands example seems no more notable than any other power station project and is only described in a vague and speculative article from two years ago. The images make no sense at all - only one, the German rendering, seems to have any real value. Even that looks more like the cover of a Brian Aldiss s-f novel. Is the "ringworld" structure such a key part of this topic? It's not even mentioned in the text. I know AfD isn't cleanup, but this article is so poor there's nothing here to start cleaning. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did the clean-up, removed vaguely related images. It is not only about pumped storage and not only about wind electricity. It's about the combination, which is an important aspect since wind energy is floating a lot and to use it better or in case one wants to rely on that source almost exclusively one needs large storage. NuclearEnergy (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be much of an individually notable concept. Only one Google Books hit, which might even be an accident - doesn't seem to be a topic of discussion in industry. The one hit is talking about a pumped storage plant, which article already discusses its application to smoothing out supply from intermittent sources. Google Scholar gives 10 hits for the phrase, all of which are about pumped storage. The existing content isn't much and would be better included in the pumped storage article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content-fork of Wind power. Keeping the title in the hopper as a redirect isn't a bad idea, but there's nothing to merge here, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ . Merge with pumped storage. Combines two separate concepts; generating electricity (which could be a wind turbine, a dam, a nuclear plant, etc.) and storing that energy (which could be pumping water uphill, batteries, a spinning flywheel, etc.) there is no point listing every combination of generating and storing energy. That would be like listing toasters powered by hydro, toasters powered by nuclear, blenders powered by hydro, blenders powered by nuclear, etc. Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept, in principle, that the German architect behind the images has created some synergistic combination of wind power & pumped hydro, evidently with constructed circular ponds, that is somehow a novel and improved concept over what went before. This is difficult - How does pumped hydro work effectively with such a low head? Where do you put such an artificial lake when the "flat country" most in mind would be the Netherlands, who are usually busy reclaiming land from the sea. Is the architect even competent on the engineering aspect (the low head seems a serious problem) or are we just looking at another KVDP pipe-dream with better artwork? Whichever it might be though, this article is failing to justify it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There’s one under construction in Greece [17], [18], the one in the Canaries is in the first phase, whatever that means [19]. The idea’s been around for a while, see Gscholar results for wind pumped storage combination [20]. (Some of these, but not all, discuss wind power and pumped storage power supplementing each other in the same grid, not at a single station). I agree the article needs work, could it be a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Incubator? Novickas (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IEEE paper isn't about "wind-hydro stations", it's about a grid-based load levelling system. That is a long-established technology, already covered at pumped storage. This article, as exemplified by the German rendered sketch, is about something else: a combined single-site station that combines both wind and pumped storage at a single location. This would appear to be technically unworkable, so it needs to demonstrate its viability separately, by some WP:RS that focusses specifically on the form described here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract says: "... The Hybrid Power Station (HPS) of Ikaria Island, Greece, which is currently in the construction stage, will be one of the first wind-hydro-pumped-storage hybrid stations in the world." Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd meant the other IEEE paper. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to news sources, this is a new technology. I wonder if the first one has been completed yet or not. [21] But it is a real thing and it does get coverage. New technologies are often given articles, even if the first one hasn't been completed yet. Dream Focus 23:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this new technology? Generating power from the wind isn't new (and we have an article on it). Storing energy by pumping water uphill isn't new either (and we have an article on that as well) . Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I misread things. Its the "world's first wind-hydro power station". The article also says that Al Gore's cable television network, Current TV, refers to the island as "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth". Stations of this type are new, even if the technology is not. Dream Focus 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new combination of current technologies does not establish notability. Nobody has ever hooked up a thorium reactor to a microwave power transmission system, but if they did that would not justify a Wikipedia article on the combination. Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would if they got independent third party coverage from reliable sources. Dream Focus 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to that logic, if Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly has independent third party coverage from reliable sources, then General Motors automobile factories straddling city borders is notable. and if Obukhov State Plant has independent third party coverage from reliable sources, then Soviet naval artillery factories converted to tank factories is notable. Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples make no sense at all. The General Motors article could include that information. Their location doesn't seem to be a significant reason to list it in separate article. As for the Soviet factories being converted, has any news organization or other reliable source said that was notable? If it was called "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth" by a reliable source, then it'd be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that anyone called wind-hydro stations "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth." They called pumped storage "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth", using one particular wind-hydro station as an example of same. Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Now that it has been enhanced with independent reliable sources with significant coverage, it's clear that there's a notable topic here. Unless there's some other reason, like the topic being already covered in another article, it's clearly a keep now. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the particular power station described in the coverage is notable and should have a Wikipedia page, but the technology is no more notable than propane powered tow trucks are (propane powered vehicles are notable, tow trucks are notable, propane powered tow trucks are not). Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:GNG, you may find that there's no reason to be having opinions about this. Let me help. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed ... notable." Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of propane-power tow trucks? If so, they're notable; if not, not. Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of hybrid wind and pumped-storage plants? Well, yes, and some are cited now, so done deal, no? Dicklyon (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is an argument for an article about these particular power stations, not for power stations as a whole. If a couple of particular propane powered tow trucks became notable (Stars of a sitcom, notable figure marries one, that sort of thing) then the subsequent coverage would justify articles about those particular propane powered tow trucks, but not an article about propane powered tow trucks in general. Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this article were just about how wind power and pumped storage work together in some grids, that info probably is present somewhere else on WP, but there are two such stations in various stages of construction – on El Hierro and Ikaria. [22]. Two stations justifies an article about it IMO, so that the concept, economics, history (including proposals mentioned in reliable sources [23], [24], [25], all of which I think deserve a sentence or two here) can be discussed in one place. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! Instead of wind-hydro stations, some call them hydro-wind stations. Dream Focus 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article doesn't call them either of those. It talks about a 'hydro-wind project' , not a station.

The difference is significant, not mere nit-picking. Wind-hydro projects have been around for years, they're already covered by pumped storage. It's a basic fact of network design that load-levelling measures like pumped storage work better at the level of a national grid, not isolated stations. Simply being a bigger network helps to even out the load. This isn't new, we don't need a new article for it. Some of these stations (like Dinorwig) were built to take surplus capacity from nukes, but after the closure of Trawsfynydd, there's no surplus nuke to be had - however there is now local wind, which they're using instead.

The article, as it was recently, described something different. It was a plan by a German architect for "combined stations" - an entirely new concept. These would use constructed reservoirs (despite the low head that then entails), with wind turbines mounted directly on them. I see this as technically problematic, because the head is so low, so I want to see real sources to support them, not the usual vague handwaving. Is there any advantage to a closely integrated wind-hydro site? Does it reduce transmission losses in some useful way? Is there a way round the low head problem? Do they have some other advantage?

The article now seems to have done the usual wikibollocks of confusing facts with pattern matching and focussing on words in Google rather than knowledge. A similarly named project in the Canaries has been picked up, despite it not being a hydro-wind station. It's actually (as far as I can see) a very small island-scale grid system, with two quite separate stations, using older technologies that are already covered by existing articles. It's a new build, but it's not a new technology.

The IEEE paper on Ikaria is a bit more promising, in that it does at least describe a station that's a deliberate combination of wind & hydro, i.e. something new in extension of previous pumped storage. To sustain this article though, we have to emphasise this difference, and to explain just why it's not simply the same tech in a duplicate article. The current article is a long way short of this.

There is also the question of whether the encyclopedia read better with one article or two. Is this just better as a section within pumped storage? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the nomenclature – project v. station. For the El Hierro project: European Commission Contract NNE5-2001-00950, El Hierro Island – the title reads BASIC DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM (WIND HYDRO POWER STATION). [26]. It’s called a facility in this proposal published by the govt of Nova Scotia: “Currently CBEX is focusing on the development of a hybrid wind/hydro pump storage power generating facility on the hills above Lake Uist.” [27]

The particulars of the combo are extensively discussed in the body of this website [28] – this is a reprint of the IEEE paper mentioned above. They state “In this paper, the term Hybrid Power Station (HPS) is used to describe a combined station, comprising a wind farm and pumped storage facilities, which is owned and operated by a single entity, the HPS producer.” In the schematic (pdf page 2) you can see a box around the combo separating it from the grid. They go into great detail about the technical, economic, and operational considerations of such stations within the Greek electrical market/regulatory framework. It would be a good basis for expansion, but I hesitate to use it as a reference, apart from the IEEE abstract, since it may not be an authorized reprint of the journal piece.

Re the German architect’s plan – it’s not in the article anymore; I don’t know that we need to discuss it any further.

Whether WP would be better off if it were merged into pumped storage - I'm thinking that readers-at-large would come to this article after seeing web mentions of the proposals and the projects underway and would be better served by an article that does a brief overview, with wikilinks to the major articles, followed by details, than by finding themselves in the middle of a larger article. It's what I prefer when I'm in unfamiliar territory. Novickas (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with pumped storage. Whilst I agree that the wind turbine/pumped storage combination is capable of being notable, I agree with the view that at this stage of development the article is just an unhelpful fork. THe principle is the same however the energy is generated in the first place; the distinguishing feature is the storage. --AJHingston (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with pumped storage. Seems to be merely an application of wind power to that technology; it's doubtful whether it can be described separately at this stage of its development. Sandstein 05:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The SPA "votes" were of great concern, but even disregarding that factor the weight of argument presented favors deletion. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Berglund[edit]

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

Article about a Swedish market analyst, statistician and consultant within opinion polls and similar subjects. I have made an extensive, good-faith attempt to find sources that would show that he is notable per WP:BIO. The claims to notability given in the article are a couple of articles in Computer Sweden (unarguably a notable newspaper) in the early 1990s, which were based on "several high-profile analyses" he had made. These articles were definitely written, but in both cases Berglund was interviewed in his capacity of analyst at TEMO (one of the two leading marketing research institutes in Sweden), on whose behalf he had conducted the analyses. There are no other credible claims to notability in the article; on the article's talk page there are some additional claims but there are no sources for these. Berglund is claimed to have "a strong presence in the media", and based on this I've spent several hours trying to find this presence. He is based in Uppsala, and several opinion polls he has conducted have been published in the free newspaper Uppsalatidningen; the larger, older and subscription-funded newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning does not mention him anywhere in its online archives, which cover issues from 2001 and onwards. (Granted, they don't index everything in their archives, but news articles, feature articles and op-eds are included, and that's where we'd expect to find mentions of an expert in public opinion). Sveriges Radio has an extensive news archive including local coverage; no mention of Berglund. Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet - no mention of Berglund. I even checked the sensationalist tabloid-type evening press papers Aftonbladet and Expressen - no Berglund. It is uncommon in Sweden to use a middle initial, although he seems to do so pretty consistently, but I have searched both with and without it. I simply cannot find that the claims that he is a notable figure are justified. Interviews in two issues of a notable newspaper - does this make him notable?

If all Berglund's other media appearances, except for his recent mentions in Uppsalatidningen, were pre-Internet, there might of course still be a claim to notability - but my search for sources did not go quite that far.

A couple of final points: Berglund's name has been added to other Wikipedia articles in what seems to be an attempt to introduce him as an authority (see edit histories for Uppsala Konsert och Kongress, Uppsalatidningen and Uppsala Central Station, as well as the articles Ärna and Boo.com.) The same thing has happened, on a larger scale, in Swedish Wikipedia - where, however, the article about Berglund was deleted as non-notable in November last year. bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough sourcing and material to believe notability before deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. I've found several passing mentions on a namesake in USA. [29]. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's very rare for anyone these days, not to see "the Emperor's new clothes", anyone who fails to see them are worth noting. Lucidity is extremely rare.Johan.nilson (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)— Johan.nilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The only relevant point here is whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Whether he is worth noting is not a question for Wikipedia to answer - only whether he has been noted. --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability apparent. Looks like commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment A very continous puffery, 22 or more years??? / Bredbyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.137.145 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC) from Sweden — 90.233.137.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep There seems to be enough sourcing and other data. CarlBergman (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— CarlBergman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I Grok This In Fullness, the source references are sufficient. V M S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.237.2 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of published third-party sources that go into non-trivial detail about Berglund's life and work, per WP:GNG. Several of the sources currently present don't even mention him; and the rest seem to be quoting him as an expert rather than saying anything nontrivial about him. The obvious sockpuppetry in this AfD isn't helping either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may not even exist, newspapers, sources, everything is fake, interesting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.237.2 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references in the article do not establish notability as required by WP:BIO. Sandstein 05:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having reviewed the references in the article, I have come to the same conclusion as David Eppstein. There is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. My searches for sources on Google and Google News Archive have not returned suitable sources. The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete as a hoax per WP:G3 (Credits listed were for Keith Urban.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 06:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aathil ahmed nizamudeen[edit]

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

Autobio of a songwriter who has been hiding is talent. Certainly Google has scarcely noticed him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUS. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: deleted per author's request (db-g7). – Athaenara ✉ 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Graffham[edit]

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

References do not establish notability. Article makes no claims of notability. Beach drifter (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I just wanted to add an article on Keith A. Buchholz as well, he is not mentioned here, hard for me to understand, that there is no article on him at wikipedia, he is one of the most important artist in fluxus at the moment. Possibly at the moment better for me, someone else focusses on him. Shall I better do not write articles on artists I worked with during any discussions ? Here is also no article on The New Blockaders, and to me, The New Blockaders were THE band in industrial music beside Throbbing Gristle and Nurse With Wound, Whitehouse and Organum, possibly someone else will focus on them. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles at LATimes and Journal mention him as artist, main information on him is at blogs, no good references, I will see if his donation of a work for permanent exhibition at Disneyland Park is better documented somewhere, mostly information I found about this donation might be originally taken from his website, I will see. I am in contact with Philipp, so can ask him for better and more references, that I can add.

So what about articles on The New Blockaders and Keith A. Buchholz, possibly another User will write some lines, ..., I will better do not during discussion, and better not lateron, for it will be always a conflict due to the fact that I like their work. But I am supposed that articles here were always written by Users, who like the subject and therefor write about this person. Cecil Touchon is mentioned with that lot of info, he is not more notable in fluxus or neo fluxus as Keith A. Buchholz is, and he has no article. Anyway, I just work as artist with Cecil Touchon as well, he saw my film DAS Backeen at Chicago Fluxfest the two curated, and now we start to work via mail at BROTKATZE Collaborations.

Concerning Philipp I have to say, that I will see, if there are better references. I will let you know in this discussion. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a considered a WP:COI if you are merely a fan of his work. If it were then a lot of articles on people (and other things one can be a fan of) would have constant COI violations. However, if you are closely related and it would be difficult to be neutral, it is a COI. For a page on yourself, this is very obvious (or for, say the creator of the LdL method). But on other artists it is more difficult to say. But this deletion discussion is not the place for discussing possible COI on these other artists. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a word was missing: but I am SUPPOSED that ..., just added it, ... Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, KHJ, are you still up for having this page speedy-deleted? -- Nczempin (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Today I learned a lot about the rules for notability! I now think, en.wikipedia was the wrong platform for this article. I wanted to do Graffham a favour with the article, not having realized, that en.wiki is for worldwide active artists/musicians/people. He is based at Ponoma, working at Ponoma. He does a lot of great work there, I am sure, but mainly at this area. This is for sure the reason, that I did not find reasonable references, he is mentioned several times at LA Times as artist, but this is only one newspaper, read at local area.

I had more artists in mind to appear here with articles. But this might be a fault, I see by now. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since you're the only author of the page, it can be speedily-deleted using "G7" (IIRC). I think that is actually an advantage, because as far as I know no discussion details would have to be retained, which means that if anyone decided at some later date to create the article, it would not have a "headwind" due to the previous deletion discussion. Since it is easier for me to just take the necessary steps than to teach you, I will ask for speedy deletion myself. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way for you to ask for speedy deletion would be to simply edit the page so it is blank. Then I wouldn't have to explain why I am doing this and not you. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not released and unplayable, or at least I can't find any reliable third-party description of a release... developer's website is down. Coverage in blogs Kotaku, Joystiq and Destructoid appears to be based on a YouTube video called Super Mario Fusion, which could just as easily be a flash movie as a game. Andrevan@ 05:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is often linked by Steam as a source, so that gives it a tint of reliability. The Steam pages (run by Valve and an official distributor for MANY games) frequently link to Kotaku as a primary source (they've done so for Mass Effect, Fallout:New Vegas and numerous other top-10-selling titles. I am not sure about the game itself, but Kotaku is a reliable source to me in wiki terms because it has been cited as a primary source by secondary sources like the Steam product pages. In other words, Kotaku is a Primary Source. If a product page published by Valve, a secondary source, cites Kotaku as relating to one of their products, then it is a tertiary reliable source for our purposes. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy Kotaku as borderline reliable (not primary, I don't think you quite understand what a primary source means) -- but take a look at the entry. This is just a repost of the YouTube video, the game is still impossible to obtain. Andrevan@ 08:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - All three sources are reliable, and do more then just show the video. They give some commentary, which I think is decent enough for "Significant coverage in third party reliable sources". The question is whether or not an article like this should really be made. I have just asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Fan remakes/hacks for them to better explain guildelines about fan games and hacks. I think this should be closed, and then a redirect/merge discussion be made afterwards. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three articles give medium-light commentary, two of which are listed as situational sources on Wikipedia's Reliable sources list. This does not strike me as an article that needs to exist at all. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, these web sites have been noted to be situational in the past (Kotaku was once situational as well) due to their coverage of trivial subjects (such as "you can get ocarinas in real life!" and "Final Fantasy VII hentai!". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the previous Afds, browsing through the history of the page, and looking for news articles, I am absolutely convinced there is not enough significant third-party coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough 3rd party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fredric Grenvile[edit]

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

From the deleted PROD: No indication of notability. 6 results for 'Richard Fredric Grenvile' via Google, which suggests a decisive lack of notability for the 'pen name' of this individual. Eeekster (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N. Mephistophelian † 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Normally book becomes notable when best seller (but Neverwas: ... released last month, hasn't, at least not yet), then author (unless wins major author award, not book award) with second contract (may still be same series if WP:RS say separate contract), then pen name, unless pen name was only name public initially; note Stephen King's Richard Bachman has an article, but Isaac Asimov's Paul French goes only to disambiguation page. Pen name article might bypass WP:BLP issues, but not WP:N, which have not been met yet. Dru of Id (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable pen name for a non-notable author of a non-notable book. Not a tough call. Funniest aspect of this article: the tag at the top of the article saying "For other people named Richard Fredric Grenvile, see Richard Fredric Grenvile (disambiguation)". --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and cleanup. No arguments have been advanced for deletion except by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents[edit]

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.

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

Not encyclopedic. Overblown daily diary which is a dumping ground for all sorts of miscellaneous news. Johnfos (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the References alone make this VERY worthwhile but this is one of the most interesting topics now and will remain so for months. After the event is resolved I perceive the timeline as being notable/of vast historical value - there is no other record as complete and especially none with the range of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires a clean up, yes, but a timeline is a notable and accepted article of major events. The main page Fukushima I nuclear accidents and 2011 Japanese nuclear incidents are too large for this info to be merged into. Ravendrop 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might not be completely encyclopedic, but I think an exception can and should be made for this disaster. I think this article is a good place to learn of recent developments. It would be almost impossible to extract this information from the other articles. In my opinion this article should be kept until this whole crisis is over. Mkomkomko (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still not known how events will turn and what the eventual outcome will be. I agree that the article is a bit messy at the moment but there is much useful information that can be edited down at a later date and it would be a shame to throw all that away for the sake of immediate tidiness. —MegaPedant 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup I rely on this article for recent events, but agree that the article is not encyclopedic enough, cleanup and consolidation of past events would help tremendously, a lot of the information was only of interest when it happened as has no permanent value. Jesper Jurcenoks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is one of the most important documents ever to be placed on Wikipedia. It is an important document because it is an instrument of honesty and accountability. It is important because so many lives have been affected this accident. People have been forced from their homes. People have gotten radiation poisoning. History is being made as we are seeing a the balance and progression of a Natural Disaster VS a Man-made disaster. Nuclear power plants exploded; there is no undoing of it. If this document is removed than I say that Wikipedia loses all respectability. The removal of this document would show that Wikipedia caters to dishonesty and kneels before propagandists. As a 8-hour a week reader of Wikipedia, I say if you remove this document, you might as well remove all the rest. BrendaEM' —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and Re-link to the Fukushima nuclear accident article. I was very surprised when I found that is no more linked to that page!! Very important data in this article. Please keep it. Elmao (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Re-link! This is an extremely valuable resource. I have it bookmarked and check it daily. Let your idea of "encyclopedia" expand to include lists such as this. If you don't like it, don't look, and leave this wealth of information to the rest of us. My browser has a scroll bar -- I would like to see this list keep expanding, unabridged, as events unfold over the decades and perhaps centuries that our species will be dealing with this mess. Do not narrow-mindedly destroy this record or make it more difficult to access. 24.8.102.25 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep complete and update. This is a unique resource, during the incident it can appear a bit confused (things are changing everyday), but VERY useful to all, in the medium and long term it can be re-engineered to be a GREAT article. It should be updated and completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcg54 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a serious good-faith proposal? This is a detailed description of the events in japan in sequence as they occurred. Can anyone honestly say that is not information of world interest? I would oppose any reformatting of this page which would damage the clarity of the information. The time-line format places events precisely in sequence and I do not see how such an article can be written without repeated reference to timestamps.Sandpiper (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandpiper. Hopefully this can be snow closed.—S Marshall T/C 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are still in the midst of the "accident sequence". It bears repeating that, according to experts, Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated. --Tenmei (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Semicolo. I read the deletions rules and it's not clear to me which one(s) this article is breaking. I wanted to know how it was going at the nuclear plant and was happy to find this detailed timeline. It IS encyclopedic in my opinion. 12:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semicolo (talk • contribs)
Keep A major incident and a timeline is valuable. Time spent raising this AfD could have been more usefully spent on cleaning it up. A two-headed mutant atom-trout for this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly for now, maybe for good. This article is an excellent place to read about how things have unfolded and find the latest news. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course! The brutal editing has generated an epic discussion which has lasted for days now, and today you simply want to delete the whole thing? The consensus seems extremely clear against it: the world cannot loose this. Johnfos, why are you making this a personal crusade? Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. The article in its current state is a bit of a mess, but this is absolutely a necessary article to have. I'm almost tempted to ask Johnfos if this is a serious proposal but that wouldn't be assuming good faith. Should be snowballed. Specs112 t
Keep, for now. Maybe it should go eventually but let it exist a little longer. This disaster is still very active and throughout the disaster this particular article has been one of the best places I've found anywhere online to stay up to date each day with the changes. Let it exist until the disaster settles down and becomes less active. 151.141.68.83 (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Definitely an article of note for the time being. Needs a cleanup in its current state and could be nominated for deletion at a later date. Noom _talk ^contribs 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

c 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where else are we going to find this information? It's too hard to find certain details in the main article, but if we know when something happened, we can likely find something here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think anyone would disagree that the event is encyclopedia-worthy. This seems very much a work-in-progress that can be expected to evolve rapidly into a more conventional form as soon as the current event retreats into history. If it still looks like this two years from now, maybe there's a problem — or not — but for the time being this should stand, methinks. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant, definitely notable. Needs clean up though, any volunteers? --TitanOne (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very important information! Certainly of note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.163.230 (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on the keepwagon -- I think this is all useful but too long to go in the main article. -- Selket ^Talk 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should come as no surprise that the article needs cleanup, since it is a current event. Needless to say, it is notable and will be forever, and has too much information to merge into the main article. Just adding mine to the pile. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - This article has problems, but it is a legit split. --M4gnum0n (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and Looney: Back In Action![edit]

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

Either this is a real movie idea that was scrapped or it's just all a big hoax. Either way, it fails WP:NFILM because a Gsearch only turned up wikis that backlink to each other. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. There was no movie by this title in 2001 which had a budget of $679 million, or that grossed over $800 billion, as this article claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already nominated for speedy deletion (not by me) and was declined. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3 as blatant hoax. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Nobody but the nominator thinks it should be deleted, but the "keep" opinions are mostly vague references to WP:GHITS or unspecified sources, and therefore not exactly compelling either. Sandstein 05:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, failing the GNG. The sources all are from the language's creators. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Book shows ample results. Lectures on Petri nets: advances in Petri nets - Wolfgang Reisig, Grzegorz Rozenberg, Correct system design: recent insights and advances -Bernhard Steffen, E.-R. Olderog, Logic for programming, artificial intelligence, and reasoning: 9th, Matthias Baaz, Andreĭ Voronkov, and others. Language is notable enough to be covered in a lot of different books. Dream Focus 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look into those books you listed, you can see that either the chapters are written by the languages creators, or the writers refer to the language when referencing the work they did with the creators. Not independent, fails GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled for "Alma-0" AND "programming" minus the names of all of the creators. There are plenty of results talking about the programming language, without mentioning any of the names of the creators. So their names aren't in the credits as contributors. [30] Dream Focus 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging article for Rescue to find more sources. Dream Focus 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets millions of results on Google. AFD is not cleanup. Article has already survived 2 AfDs in the last two months so perhaps a procedural close is in order. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first closed because of an off-site canvassing that forced the nominator to leave Wikipedia. The second closed with two keep !votes, one which was incorrectly procedural and the other which only listed non-independent citations. ~~While I'm totally fine if this ends in a keep decision,~~ the circumstances of the past two AfDs should not be a reason to speedily close it.Given my further analysis of Dream Focus' sources, I'm no longer at all fine with this being kept--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrading to regular keep. Always sad to hear of editors being driven away by off-site canvassing, it once happened even to a leading ARS member. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm having a difficult time trying to find secondary, independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG for this article. However, I do think it is a topic worthy of support, which once again indicates to me that WP:GNG is insufficient.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—I found a pair of reliable secondary sources that were independent of the original developers. Notable.—RJH (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you must be familiar with how to check the article history.—RJH (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I see the sources you added, but would you mind telling us the extent of the coverage on Alma-0 in them? Based on the sentences they're used to cite, it could very well be notability affirming coverage, but it also looks like it could easily be a one sentence or two mention that would not qualify as significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the sources, the coverage certainly seems limited. The first, for example, seems to only mention it in one paragraph, while the second does in two, and neither as a main focus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we seem to have quite a few editors participating here, I would note that no real valid keep !vote has been given yet. There is no sort of inherent notability for programming languages, so for this to stay it must pass the bare minimum standards established by the GNG. So far it has not done so (while Dream Focus mentioned sources, a quick search easily confirms that those books have chapters written by the language's creators or the authors wrote journals articles with the language's creators on the language and helped develop the language. These cannot be considered independent. Feyd Huxtable's argument really doesn't hold water, GHITS alone are not enough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2000 results. Adding in "programming language" to weed out most of the bad results [31] reduces it to 36 books. I doubt all of them were written by the creators. Dream Focus 15:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that you doubt it. Now how about you actually say which one provides significant coverage while being reliable and independent?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. All independent, and you can click any of them at random to read through and see significant coverage. Everyone else but you seems convinced of the language's notability already. Dream Focus 05:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tell you this before. Look at the top of the page. See the names of the people who wrote those chapters? Look familiar? They're the language creators.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated those search results. There are results without the last name of any of the creators. Google Advance search for "Alma-0" and "programming" without the words "Krzysztof" "Bezem" "Brunekree" "Partington" "Schaerf". Dream Focus 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But look at the books you listed, their names are still there. They wrote those chapters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link. Fixed it now. [32] Dream Focus 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now let's use the first that comes up there as an example. Go to the section of the book on Alma-0, on page 94. See the top of the page? That chapter is written by Apt and Schaerf. Evidently google doesn't filter out names by the entire book. It's tricky, but we need to be careful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiawase kisa sanchōme[edit]

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

I cannot tell if it is notable. It also has no references. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 02:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Article is less than 24 hours old, so AfD is bad form at best. 2) Based on your nomination rationale, you didn't even attempt WP:BEFORE 3) Its been translated and licensed in two countries. I would, however, suggest this be moved to Happy Cafe. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: The correct title of the series seems to be Shiawase Kissa Sanchōme. I moved the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... oops, the IP 159.182.1.4 is right, see Malaysia Star article. The title of the series is Happy Cafe [33]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the article under the name Happy Cafe, there's a good possibility to create a well referenced information about this comic book: The Manga Critic Manga Maniac Cafe + the above mentioned reviews in the Malaysia Star. I'll add the sources to the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no shortage of coverage in my CSE. Didn't even need to clean it up. --Gwern (contribs) 16:06 13 April 2011 (GMT)
Keep per the reviews found in Gwern's search. – Allen4names 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The list item referred to by KrebMarkt below has been moved to Talk:Happy Cafe. – Allen4names 04:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For information Happy Cafe was an Anime/Manga requested article since at least April 2010. There is enough coverage to warrant an article. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found. Dream Focus 04:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Staves[edit]

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

Cannot find coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. May become notable one day, but not at present. Doomgaze (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND, can't find any significant coverage. Seems to be a local band, for local people, we'll have no trouble here. Rehevkor ✉ 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Roquia (Xixi Maturan)[edit]

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

WP:N: Can't find reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this actor/singer/etc. under the general notability guideline. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, subject o article does not appear to pass WP:BASIC. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appointments Bi-Language[edit]

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

Promotional article for a rather run-of-the-mill temp agency. Fails WP:CORP. The article has some sources, but the articles are either from unreliable sources, blog-like sites, don't include significant coverage of the company, or are articles that are primarily about the founders of the company rather than the company itself. —SW— ^communicate 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what exactly it means, but the user that created the article claims the logo (on commons) as his 'own work'. jorgenev (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some authoritative articles from the The Guardian, The Times, Sunday Times, The Telegraph, London Evening Standard which will be referenced shortly.

I was involved in the logo creation; how should I proceed with a more correct licensing attribute?

Mattador79 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't verify the refs that are not URLs, but the others are either: primary, from the subject itself, its founder, or partners (PR). Others are simply directory listings and mentions that they were nominated for but did not win awards. Others only mention them in passing. The company does not seem to meet WP:CORP.
As for logo creation, you should see WP:COI- if you have a conflict of interest you are heavily discouraged from editing articles relating to it. If you yourself created the logo on behalf of ABL you likely do not own the necessary rights to license the image as you did. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine announcements of contracts and petty trade awards do not make a business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP does not seem to be met. WP:NOTPROMOTION may also be relevant. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLANTA Project[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Very few/no gnews or other ghits. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the other project management software products (e.g. Inloox, RPlan, Projectron BCS even Microsoft Project etc. etc.) and then compare what is notable and compare the references: some only cite their own case studies. The deletion policy in wikipedia is not transparent: if 30 and more products are allowed to be presented why not the 31? And when deleting PLANTA Project do not forget to delete all the other PM Product entries, too. Projektleiter (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Other articles not meeting the standards is not an excuse for this one, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you genuinely believe other articles do not meet the standards you're welcome to nominate them (assuming you aren't just trying to retaliate). Currently the article only cites PLANTA's own website, which cannot be used to establish notability- see the general notability guideline. OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Definitively there was not only PLANTA's own website cited: You completely ignored the 3 references to independent studies and articles and did not recognize that the article of Kristin Vogelsang was published by Projekt Magazin. Now, there have been added new weblinks to independent websites having published articles and studies about PLANTA Project, so that the wiki article is fully enhanced with reliable references. Please avoid commenting on people (see wiki guidelines on that) Projektleiter (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I can't really evaluate some of those refs, being snippet views, but I am not convinced that the program meets WP:MILL. OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archimede Middle East[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. All sources cited are written by this company or its parent companies, unreliable or don't mention the subject at all. Creator removed prod saying that the company is "known mainly through its unique products", however this isn't a standard of notability. Hut 8.5 10:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Even if the business or its products were notable, this is still an article about the Middle Eastern branch of a windows manufacturer that apparently does not have its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would creating an article about its parent company that is compliant with Wikipedia's rules keep this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.168.95 (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the subject of the article doesn't seem to pass the notability guideline for companies. The parent company doesn't have an article and doesn't seem to be notable either, so that is a strong indicator that any branch of the company is non-notable as well. If an acceptable article is written on the parent company then it may be possible to merge the two articles. Hut 8.5 10:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are references, I fail to see how this is notable. It also does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I have no issue with including something about this subsidiary being included in the article for the parent company if and when that article can be justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A company that makes windows. When did companies that make windows become a notable subject. If they were making windows for a moon-base then maybe. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oruxmaps[edit]

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

Non-notable Android software application. With no secondary sources, there is not indication that the software meets notability criteria, and while there are thousands of Google hits for this product, I have not seen any that would constitute a reliable secondary source. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the text and wiki markup from the article, so no worries if the consensus is to delete it. I still see it as useful for the rapidly growing Android GPS application category and would like to see it grow into a more mature article with input from other sources and contributors, and be joined by wiki articles on other popular free apps like RMaps and Locus. Jw4nvc (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was prodded on the talk page, so I removed the tag and sent it here. No opinion. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FXT Magazine[edit]

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability. bender235 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, not yet released magazine. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notablity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see any example of notability. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wastelands Interactive[edit]

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

This Polish video game company fails the general notability guideline and WP:CORP. I could not find any independent sources that would establish the notability of this company. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources seem to be limited to directories and press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to exist solely for self-promotion. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Smith (Leadership Consultant)[edit]

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

Yet another vanity page for an obscure business consultant. Only media references I can find for "The Oz Principle" are press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 22:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – NN consultant lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support WP:BIO or any other notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google News finds nothing under either Tom Smith or Thomas Smith. His company's website [34] claims Best-seller status on multiple lists for one of his books, but I was unable to verify any of that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V - nothing on Google news, scholar, or books. It's funny, because Google seems not to index his books several ways. So I tried a narrow net and a wider net, but I could not find much else either. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Biju Viswanath. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viola film[edit]

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

non notable film WuhWuzDat 07:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article to that of director Biju Viswanath where it might be mentioned. Is minimally sourcable, but does not have enough notability for an independent article. That said, the director article needs a lot of work itself, but at least HE has sourcable notability and meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Biju Viswanath. Simply can't find anything in significant sources using many possible combinations of words. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Singapore[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)I dont think this should be deleted it is very important

Interuniversity event with no evidence of coverage from reliable sources. The only information appears to come from a primary source (an organization which sponsors the event). No third party coverage, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. PROD contested by author. Kinu ^t/_c 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The event is a national event held across 3 universities, the information available is not in digital form, so it is not online, however one can find plenty of videos in Youtube etc. of the event which bears testimony to the fact that the event is real. And I propose that instead of deleting the article, why not put citation needed tags. Mohit Kanwal (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying whether the event exists. The contention is that it isn't notable. Are there any third party reliable sources that discuss the event? Being videotaped and placed on YouTube does not provide information about the topic that can be used in the article. Also, the "citation needed" tag is for snippets of content that are possibly dubious and need sourcing. In this case, the entire article is under question as to whether its subject is an encyclopedic topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Something that is held nation-wide ought to be important? According to the contention, it would mean that the event would be notable only if it is covered by some newspaper or magazine, which is in direct opposition to the notion of an article being an encyclopedic topic. Mohit Kanwal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second sentence is absolutely right... per WP:GNG, it's notable if there has been significant third party coverage in reliable sources. Per Wikipedia standards, that's what an encyclopedic topic is. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The delete arguments are weak (meeting WP:V currently is not required for inclusion), but those who support keeping the articles don't really address the issue being disussed. This one isn't a NPASR close, but it seems like what we really need is a discussion on whether being fully sourced is necessary to keep these articles. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) ([[Special:EditPage/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada)

|edit]] | [[Talk:List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) Large number of missing sources. I have looked and can't find anything to verify any of the very many unsourced positions; nothing published by CANOE seems to have any kind of archive. We had the same problem with the 2004-present Canadian Country Singles and Canadian Country Albums charts, which are published in a similar fashion and similarly lack any sort of searchable archive to verify the info (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)). Note that the 2011 article is cited only to a single page on canoe.ca, which displays only the present week's chart and no sort of archive to search previous weeks' positions.

Last AFD was no consensus after two weeks, with no prejudice against re-nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, consider wielding trout against nominator. The previous AFD was closed only eight minutes before this one was opened, and the nominator has made no attempt to address the major issue at the prior AFD -- that the argument for deletion is expressly contradicted by policy provisions of WP:V, which provide quite clearly that "lack of any searchable [online] archive," as the nominator asserts, is not a demonstration of unverifiablity. "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." The material in question is undeniably published by a reliable source, and appears to be freely available by subscription, as well as freely accessible online during the week of current publication, meaning that the content can be preserved via webcitation and similar services. Had not the user who was doing been driven away from the project, this wouldn't be a problem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I e-mailed Nielsen about their charts and they said that no, they do not have an archive available via subscription. Also, WebCitation and Wayback machine still leave many, many gaps; I found this when trying to find some sort of archival for the Canadian Country Albums chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Holster that trout pardner, WP:NPASR means that one is free to renominate 8 seconds after the close if he wants to. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The argument for deletion clearly fails on what it takes to be nominated to be deleted. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Keep Classic example of why you WP:Don't bludgeon the process, even if you are a Hammer. Should be withdrawn until the "flaws" have had to the opportunity to be worked out, since it just slid through AFD less than 10 minutes prior to the nom. Sorry Hammer, but jeez, give an article 30 days between AFDs and you don't have to hear this stuff, then there isn't a question about faith in the nom and it can stand on its own merits. While my personal experience has been that Hammer acts in good faith, he has to understand that it looks bad when you stack AFDs that way, and honestly, nothing is gained by bludgeoning it, and nothing is lost by waiting a wee bit. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:V. If it can't be verified (and someone saying that they saw it at some point nor do I consider Wayback to be wholly reliable) it shouldn't be included, regardless of notability. Ravendrop 06:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There does appear to be a misunderstanding here that WP:V requires that sources are easily accessible online... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missed something... I clearly said that I contacted Neilsen personally, and they said it's not accessible OFFline either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for going to that effort to contact Neilsen, and I ought to have said so right off. But what I'm trying to say is that a reliable source does not suddenly become unreliable just because a link goes dead, even if it does make it more difficult for us to personally verify the information. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors (2009 TV series)[edit]

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

There do not appear to be any sources that show this TV series should have its own article. No reviews outside of what appear to be blogs, no real coverage beyond "there's a new TV series and it's called Warriors" that every TV show gets. Suggest this be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It's a real series, it may need better sourcing, but that doesn't rate a deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the series exists. It obviously exists. The question is whether sources exist to support an article. You suggest that it needs better sourcing. Can you locate perhaps two or three sources that cover this show? AFD is for cleanup, meaning deletion, of articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, but to offer an example of a similar TV series, Human Weapon was on the same network, covered similar subject material and ran about the same number of episodes. It has sources from ABC, The New York Times, The LA Times and others. I've no questions about the existence of that article. Similar sourcing is needed for this series. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[35], [36], [37], [38]. There are several newspaper accounts of the show, though unfortunately, most of them are archived and you have to pay to see them. Corvus cornix_talk 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link 1 appears to be about the host, not the series, and the preview offers little about the series. Link 2 has independence issues since the author is a RI Guardsman, as is the series host. There are also questions as to whether the Blackanthem Military News is a reliable source. Not to mention that the entire story is two paragraphs long and pretty much says "This guy is hosting this show about this subject." Link 3 appears to be a TV listing based on the title "Thursday TV pick" and its 84 word length. Link 4 makes no mention of the series in the visible preview. I'm not seeing the sort of substantial coverage that would support the article beyond a handful of Google hits. I don't think that asking for one national-level source that is about the series is unreasonable. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harley, why are you hating on this show? Obviously you are being outvoted, so get over and leave the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, most of the sources are archived. Just because the source doesn't appear in the visible link doesn't mean it isn't there. I did my search by looking for the name of the show and its host via Google News archives. I stand by my claim that these and others that I did not list, are reliable sources. And I stand by my even stronger assertion that lack of reliable sources is not a reason for deletion, just that there needs to be sources provided. Corvus cornix_talk 01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reliable sources are a bedrock requirement and those sources must be verifiable. What constitutes a basis for deletion if not a lack of reliable sources? "It's real" is not a basis for an article, otherwise everything and everyone that has ever existed would qualify for an article. "Just because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" is an argument best reserved for theological debates, not deletion discussions. Articles aren't retained on the assumption that somewhere there must be sources. The sources need to exist first. "Tonight on TV: Warriors" doesn't cut it and that's all these so-called "sources" amount to. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a "real" link to History channel about the show.Rachelskit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the History channel cannot establish the notability of a show on the History channel. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if you want you can pick apart every single link. You're still outvoted HarleyRachelskit (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing that AFD isn't a vote and that it's strength of argument and not sheer numbers that counts. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That relative and your opinion. The show deserves a page because it was discontinued, but popular show on the history channel. Case Closed.Rachelskit (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No subject "deserves" a page and subjects need to be supported by sources that go beyond "this exists". Try citing something that actually exists in Wikipedia policy. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the sources behind paywall provided by Corvus cornix—[39] [40] [41]—in case it will facilitate further analysis or prove Harley Hudson's points. Goodvac (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The the series develop, if it makes no wow, then the article should be deleted. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "if it makes no wow" means. The series is not going to "develop" because it has been off the air for almost two years. One would think that any "wow" that it was going to make would have been made by now. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This show is great and deserves an article. Plus it has many links to historical events! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "greatness" of a show has no relevance. No subject "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not rewards or entitlements. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Corvus cornix. Sources exist to document notability. We don't require that an article have sources to be kept - only that it be sourceable. As noted, AFD is not for cleanup. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nivetha Thomas[edit]

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

~~May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers Djc wi (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a winner of the Kerala state film award (the highest award for Malayalam cinema), she meets WP:ANYBIO--Sodabottle (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess you're right. My mistake. --Djc wi (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Mittal[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only claim to notability is that he spoke at a conference of Python programmers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because if only this level of conference speaker notability gets you WP:N for an article, I can have one too 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sarcasm duly noted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Meaker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG, unremarkable band. doomgaze (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- no indication of notability. -- Selket ^Talk 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find much on the publisher, guessing was self. Regardless, no indication or even real claim of notability, fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress). Editorial consensus (not present here) needs to determine whether any of this is significant enough to be merged from history and included there. Sandstein 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hathaway effect[edit]

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

Dan Mirvish blogged on March 2 that when actress Anne Hathaway was mentioned in print, shares of unrelated mega-company Berkshire-Hathaway went up. His observation was noted by a few blogs, papers, and magazines over the next few days. User:DanMirvish created this article March 7. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An item of humor which got a splash of coverage does not need an encyclopedia article as if it were a scientific theory, in which case it would fail WP:FRINGE. Edison (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: This could be redirected to Dan Mirvish. Edison (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is supposed to be a scientific phenomenon, then rather than a few selected dates when she was in the press and the stock went up, I would expect to see a time correlation of all press coverage of the actress against the stock price movement. One could choose dates carefully and claim lots of bogus relationships between variable X and variable Y. Edison (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect either to the article on the creator or the actress, or a mention in both. A story of note, but in terms of having the legs to sustain an encyclopaedia article in perpetuity, this is too much of a flash in the pan. Skomorokh 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some other article per Skomorokh. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. It looks like this was a blog posting rather than an academic paper. Mirvish seems to have based his analysis on six data points. Surely every cool idea that a blogger has isn't notable. I don't think there's nearly enough substance here for this to be encyclopedic. GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Andrevan@ 05:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor blip in the blog echo chamber — akin to NOTNEWS, 'cept there's really no news behind it, just a random essay on a blog. There is no real "Hathaway effect" nor is it an encyclopedia-worthy aspect of popular culture. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the first reference (which is supposed to demonstrate notability) reads humourously and bloggy to me, and takes comments with the first beginning "Good story. Unfortunately, it has a very slight drawback of being completely and utterly wrong.", I am very dubious about this being a worthy subject for a standalone article. It is a neologism, and as per Wiktionary's standards, I think it needs to show repeated use for more than one year, before we should accept it as a standalone article. In the meantime, redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress), and see if it is worth a mention there before trying ti spin it out as its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite's well-reasoned argument. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian (2014 film)[edit]

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

Not a single source has been produced that even indicates that such a concept is being considered. The article itself is flimsy, and, if such a project were to exist, it would be merged into a parent article until enough information was presented to prove notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I didn't find anything either. Sounds a tad made up, and how do you assume "good faith" when the writer doesn't include a single source? —Mike Allen 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be speedy deleted. The author of the hoax said this on the talk page "it's a good idea for this film, pixar will make it." —Mike Allen 01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked Google and IMDB; it's a hoax. Mephistophelian † 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack[edit]

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

Not only is the article unreferenced, but it doesn't prove notability. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song was Beck's first single and the song that first drew attention to him by the media and major labels. There is discussion of the song in Nevin Martell's biography of Beck at pages 15, 113, and 114. See Google books preview here. Another book here discusses how this track when released on the tiny Flipside label drew attention of the major labels to Beck. Similarly, the Penguin Encyclopedia of Popular music here notes: "Beck sang MTV Makes Me Want To Smoke Crack' at Cafe Troy '93, co-owned by his mother, and a bidding war broke out, resolved when Beck signed with Geffen." The Trouser Press Guide to 90s Rock here notes: "An embryonic single, "MTV Makes Me Wanna Smoke Crack," drew some appreciative smirks from fellow enemies of, er, The Man, but received little attention east of LA's city limits." See also the Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music here. The article here outlines the importance of the song in Beck's overall body of work. There is also critical commentary on the song in, among other sources, the Boston Globe here, Consequence of Sound here, Philadelphia Inquirer here, Chicago Tribune here, Chicago Sun-Times here, Spin here, and The Telegraph here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This single is notable for being Beck's first ever official release. Also an article being poorly referenced is not a valid reason to propose deletion. Please read: WP:DEL#REASON (Poor references are only a valid reason if verifiability is being called into question... Are you suggesting the single is a fake?) Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beck's leading role in 1990s American rock seems self-evident and an article on a first release seems rational. Cbl62 above seems to provide enough independently published fodder to demonstrate notability of the song. Tag for sources, keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. WP:V does not apply, as most of the claims can be sourced. The good sources found (and noted above) should be added to the article. XfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majuba Aviation crash[edit]

Lindsay Conklin[edit]

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable[edit]

Mesoregion[edit]

Microregion[edit]

Tomm Mandryk[edit]

Renascence Bulldogge[edit]

Showcase Showdown (band)[edit]

Fictional fictional character[edit]

Holy Trinity College and Seminary[edit]

Carlos Flores (football manager)[edit]

Railpower RP20BD[edit]

Railpower RP14BD[edit]

GMD GF6C[edit]

Marc Spelmann[edit]

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes[edit]

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes[edit]

William Hunt Painter[edit]

List of Labor Day celebrations[edit]

Air France Flight 7[edit]

Morpheus Global University[edit]

Strong gravitational constant[edit]

Rakan Ben Williams[edit]

Tense-aspect-mood[edit]

Discovery Primea[edit]

Arthur S. Herman[edit]

List of The Powerpuff Girls villains[edit]

Charles S. Herrman[edit]

Removal of other editor's comments[edit]

Suggestion for Mr. Herrman's supporters[edit]

Should we request that this AfD be closed prematurely?[edit]

Wind-hydro station[edit]

George A. Berglund[edit]

Aathil ahmed nizamudeen[edit]

Philipp Graffham[edit]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion[edit]

Richard Fredric Grenvile[edit]

Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents[edit]

Bush and Looney: Back In Action![edit]

Alma-0[edit]

Shiawase kisa sanchōme[edit]

The Staves[edit]

Paul H. Roquia (Xixi Maturan)[edit]

Appointments Bi-Language[edit]

PLANTA Project[edit]

Archimede Middle East[edit]

Oruxmaps[edit]

F*X*T Magazine[edit]

Wastelands Interactive[edit]

Thomas Smith (Leadership Consultant)[edit]

Viola film[edit]

Tarang Singapore[edit]

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)[edit]

Warriors (2009 TV series)[edit]

Nivetha Thomas[edit]

Asim Mittal[edit]

Kourosh Kalantar-Zadeh[edit]

Dr Meaker[edit]

The Hathaway effect[edit]

The Guardian (2014 film)[edit]

MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack[edit]

FXT Magazine[edit]